Oral Answers to Questions

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

The Secretary of State was asked—

Construction Industry

Desmond Swayne: If she will make a statement on the prospects for the construction industry.

Brian Wilson: The prospects for the United Kingdom construction industry are good despite the present economic uncertainties. The industry has enjoyed an extended period of growth and most industry experts forecast that this will continue. The industry continues to benefit from the rethinking construction process initiated by Sir John Egan.

Desmond Swayne: I thank the Minister for that answer. He will be aware of the acute shortage of skilled operators for plant. What estimate has he made of the impact of the European physical agents vibration directive and, in particular, the European Parliament's amendment to the common position? What effect will that have on the industry, and what action is he going to take to defend the common position?

Brian Wilson: I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the use of vibratory tools and vehicles. Our position is not to support the amendment, which could in some cases result in only two or three hours' use of such tools and vehicles in a day. On the other hand, we must get a sense of balance on the construction industry. It does not have a good record on health and safety. He lifts his eyes heavenwards, but he should look at the statistics because many people are killed and injured in that industry, which is why Sir John Egan and I have made health and safety one of our top priorities, working with the industry to address that record. We should not lightly dismiss health and safety measures.
	As part of my responsibilities, I see the effect of vibration white finger on people who have been exposed to the uncontrolled use of vibratory tools. Let us not sneer at such matters. We should get a sense of balance. In this case, we believe that the balance has gone too far the other way, and we will work to redress that position.

Michael Foster: The brand new hospital project in Worcester is nearing completion. At St. Barnabas primary school in my constituency four dilapidated mobile units are being replaced by four permanent classrooms. I understand that such projects are taking place up and down the land. What assessment has my hon. Friend received of the impact that such work will have on the construction industry?

Brian Wilson: My hon. Friend is right. Record levels of investment are being made in health and education, some of which is going into construction projects up and down the country. I do not know the details of the specific project that he mentions, but a huge instrument in supporting that programme is the use of public-private partnerships. PPPs are justified because they offer value for money, make it possible to do so much more and, at the same time, generate tremendous activity in the construction industry.
	Having said that, some 40 per cent. of procurement in the construction industry comes from the public sector. We are working to ensure that that is done better and more effectively. If we can make sure that it is carried out on a more rational basis, we could have even more building projects, like the one that my hon. Friend mentions, for the amounts that are being invested. We have to do all that better and keep the levels of investment going. One of the biggest beneficiaries of that will be the construction industry and those who are employed in it.

Bob Spink: Does the Minister accept the great value that self-employed construction workers add to our economy? If so, will he replace the IR35 legislation with something that really tries to tackle tax abuses in the system without unfairly impeding genuine people working in the construction industry?

Brian Wilson: On this side of the House we believe in fairness in taxation and do not support devices to get around that. Of course there is a role for genuinely self-employed people in the construction industry, and many are in that position. However, we are much more sceptical about the role of companies that treat people as self-employed, relieve themselves of responsibilities towards those individuals and therefore use self-employment as a means of cutting cost. That is not fairness in taxation. It is also not fairness in employment.

John Cryer: Is my hon. Friend aware of the Harvey report, which suggests that there are 300,000 to 400,000 bogus self-employed workers in the construction industry? Is he also aware that that has led to a deep fragmentation of the industry? There has been an undercutting of health and safety measures, and 105 people died on construction sites last year. That might not matter very much to the Opposition, but it certainly matters to us. Will my hon. Friend undertake to review the construction industry with our hon. Friends in the Treasury, and consider bogus self-employment in particular?

Brian Wilson: My hon. Friend makes two excellent points. Self-employment has a role; bogus self-employment does not, and it is far too deeply embedded in the practices of the construction industry. It is undoubtedly one of the factors that leads to the appalling safety record which, as he says, is so lightly treated by the Opposition. I am pleased that the safety issue is being taken seriously in the rethinking construction process, under the leadership of Sir John Egan.
	One of the major priorities of the rethinking production programme is to treat people with respect in the construction industry. If projects can be better planned and implemented, if more work can be done off-site and if we have proper employment practices in the industry, undoubtedly we shall reduce the disgraceful number of deaths that my hon. Friend mentioned. The process must be systematic and we must work with the industry. That is why the rethinking construction programme is so important.

Robert Key: No one is sneering at industrial injury or vibration injury that is caused by anything from jack hammers to sewing machines. It was a Conservative Government who saw the beginning of a continuing process in 1994. The Government have brought us to a ridiculous position, where farms, factories, articulated lorries and forestry are involved. The construction industry will be ruined, and life will be made impossible for small family farmers. We expect the Minister of State to use the six-week conciliation period to go to Europe to sort out the problem, and stop the nonsense that is so damaging. It gives the European Union a bad name.

Brian Wilson: As it is a sworn role of the Conservative party in its current manifestation to give the European Union a bad name, whether fairly or unfairly, I am not surprised by the hon. Gentleman's comments. I absolve him. I am sure that he takes these issues seriously. However, I can assure him that the response of Members sitting behind him does no credit to his party.
	We take the issue seriously in terms of its impact on business. We also take health and safety issues seriously. I shall be pleased to work with the hon. Gentleman and those of his colleagues who share our concerns. We can surely cut across parties by addressing the fact that there are about 10 deaths a month in the construction industry. The industry also manages to kill one pedestrian every month. Surely we can do better than that, and we can do it by working together on a non-partisan basis.

Aviation Industry

Paul Goggins: What action she is taking to assist the aviation industry following the 11 September terrorist attacks.

Wayne David: If she will make a statement on the progress which has been made in providing support to the aerospace and airline industries since 11 September.

Patricia Hewitt: This Government were the first to underwrite insurance for UK airlines and service providers after 11 September to ensure that the airlines could continue flying. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport Local Government and the Regions is considering whether further aid should be offered to the UK airline industry. We have been in close contact with the aerospace industry since 11 September, and will continue to work with it to help deal with the impact of the terrorist attacks and to ensure a strong future for the industry.

Paul Goggins: My right hon. Friend will know that this has been a difficult week for the aviation industry in the north-west, with the announcement of further job losses at BAE Systems and at Airtours. May I draw her attention to the plight of 620 staff at FLS Aerospace at Manchester airport who undertake essential aircraft maintenance work? They were recently served with 90-day notices.
	In welcoming the action that the Government are already taking, will my right hon. Friend join me in urging FLS to co-operate fully with the work force, Manchester Airport plc and other companies in striving to retain as many of these skilled jobs as possible?

Patricia Hewitt: My hon. Friend is right to say that these are difficult times for the airline and aerospace industry. I share his dismay at the impact of the terrorist atrocity upon his constituents and others who work in the industry, particularly those at FLS Aerospace. I understand that the company is hoping to avoid compulsory redundancies. We shall do everything possible to work with it to ensure that as far as possible these highly skilled workers stay in employment. Where that is not possible, we will do everything that we can to ensure that workers who are made redundant get new jobs as quickly as possible.

Wayne David: I thank my right hon. Friend for her response. I am sure that she will share my concern about the fact that there have been 350 jobs losses announced at GE Aircraft Engine Services at Nantgarw near Caerphilly in south Wales. Will she say what discussions have taken place at a European level about possible support for the industry?

Patricia Hewitt: I entirely share my hon. Friend's concern about the impact of the situation on his constituents and others at GEAES in south Wales. I understand that it is one of the world's leading companies in aero-engine repair and maintenance. I know that every help is being given in Wales to the company and its workers; my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and the Chancellor have both been in discussions with our counterparts in the European Community about what support should properly be given to the industry.

Patsy Calton: Will the Secretary of State make a full statement on 1,000 jobs lost in my constituency this week at BAE Systems at Woodford? Will she comment on the further losses expected at Manchester airport, especially at FLS Aerospace and Airtours? How far are they due to 11 September, and what is she doing to ensure that the skills involved are not lost to the nation?

Patricia Hewitt: The hon. Lady makes an extremely important point. We must all understand that the atrocity of 11 September and subsequent events have severely damaged the airline and aerospace industries. In north America, for example, there is a decline of 30 to 40 per cent. in passenger numbers; in Europe, the decline is between 10 and 20 per cent. We will continue to work with companies and affected workers to support them in every way that we can. However, I also stress to her that the aerospace industry in particular remains fundamentally strong. Despite the devastating job losses, particularly at British Aerospace, the longer-term future remains bright with new orders recently placed for Airbus, and Lockheed and its British partners securing the contract for the joint strike fighter. I am sure that she welcomes that as much as I do.

Patrick McLoughlin: Does the Secretary of State realise that it is not just British Aerospace? The sudden announcement today by Rolls-Royce will lead to problems, particularly in the Derby area, where a huge number of job losses were confirmed this morning; I know that she will be aware of that. Will she have urgent talks with her colleagues at the Ministry of Defence to see if there is any way in which some of those announcements can be alleviated by looking at defence contracts? Will they consider whether the defence industry could have a beneficial impact on the aviation industry, particularly at this severe time?

Patricia Hewitt: The announcement this morning of the job losses at Rolls-Royce is confirmation of an announcement made some weeks ago following the events of 11 September. We have already awarded £750.000 million to the east midlands taskforce, to help particularly with the appalling effect of those redundancies in Derby and Derbyshire. I have already had discussions with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on those matters.

Lindsay Hoyle: Will my right hon. Friend consider introducing a summit for the aviation industry and those who supply it with components? Is she aware of the job losses both in Lancashire and among suppliers? What hope can she give them of bringing forward orders such as those for large aircraft, which will bring the work back? Work on the joint strike fighter order is far away; we need work now if we are to continue in future.

Patricia Hewitt: I am, of course, aware of the redundancies to which my hon. Friend referred. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and other colleagues have done everything that they can to strengthen security at airports and restore passenger confidence in air travel. Fundamentally, that is the best way to assist the industry right through the supply chain. Of course, my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy and I will continue to work very closely indeed with the aviation and aerospace industries to see how we can support them in both the short and longer term.

Regulatory Impact Assessments

Christopher Chope: If she will meet the Small Business Service to discuss the recommendations of the National Audit Office report "Better Regulation: making good use of regulatory impact assessments"; and if she will make a statement.

Nigel Griffiths: I am discussing the NAO report with the Small Business Service. I thank the hon. Gentleman for asking me to make good use of regulatory impact assessments. How about this: RIAs have identified that 94 per cent. of the costs on business result from two measures, the national minimum wage and the working time directive? The first is now supported by the hon. Gentleman's party; the second is one on which the Conservatives abstained in Brussels in 1993.

Christopher Chope: The Minister's typically complacent response to the serious recommendations of the NAO shows that the Government merely pay lip service to reducing the burden of regulation on small businesses, while that burden is increasing all the time. What will be done to ensure that the Small Business Service produces the report recommended by the NAO in recommendation 26.vii, and what action has the Department taken in response to the earlier recommendation of the better regulation taskforce that it become a champion of small retailers, who find that they are spending up to five full days every month dealing with Government administration?

Nigel Griffiths: The NAO put the record straight and commended us for using regulatory impact assessments to avoid £150 million in costs to business on one measure alone. Of course it is important that we do everything that we can to minimise red tape. That is why we have appointed a Minister with responsibility for regulatory reform in every Department, established a ministerial panel for regulatory accountability, and passed the Regulatory Reform Act 2001 to provide a fast track for reducing burdens and scrapping outdated legislation. The hon. Gentleman speaks with some authority on the matter. When he was a Minister in the six years after 1986, 18,434 regulations were passed.

Adrian Bailey: Does my hon. Friend agree that small businesses are for ever complaining about the alleged burden of red tape? Can he update the House on the progress made by the deregulation unit in the Department of Trade and Industry?

Nigel Griffiths: Good progress has been made. Many small businesses do not have the resources—the legal and accountancy advice—-available to large businesses. That makes it necessary for every Government Department to think small first. It is important to remind the House, as my hon. Friend has done, that a great deal of valuable work has been carried out by Government. That is perhaps one reason why Arthur Andersen research shows the UK as the country that provides the most overall friendly entrepreneurial environment, fostering growth companies most effectively.

Philip Hammond: The Small Business Service was set up less than two years ago to champion the interests of small business in Government. The Minister confirmed this morning that he will discuss the report with the Small Business Service. Can he explain why his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State found it necessary to strip the Small Business Service of that role, leading directly to the resignation of its respected chief executive, Mr. David Irwin? Can he tell the House which crony of the Government his right hon. Friend intends to put in place of Mr. Irwin as the new small and medium-sized enterprise tsar?

Nigel Griffiths: The Opposition spokesperson is wrong on both counts. The role of the Small Business Service has been strengthened, and Mr. David Irwin, who has shown excellent leadership and ensured that the Small Business Service is helping thousands of businesses through Business Links and other Government measures, has informed me that he is serving out his full contract. There is no question of him resigning.

Debra Shipley: What assessment would my hon. Friend make of the impact of the Chancellor's speech on small businesses in my Stourbridge constituency, bearing it in mind that half of them are located in the black country—a very deprived area?

Nigel Griffiths: We must ensure that the communities for which my hon. Friend speaks enjoy the general economic prosperity. The Phoenix fund and other DTI measures are ensuring that companies get a chance to start and to grow in such communities. I know that she will welcome the simplification of tax for small business that was announced the day before yesterday, among other useful measures. The VAT simplification is helping up to 900,000 businesses, and the simplification of taxation for small businesses is helping up to half a million firms. I hope that all those measures will persuade more firms to locate in her constituency.

Investment

David Amess: If she will make a statement on changes in trends in inward investment into the UK in the last six months.

Alan Johnson: The trend in the past six months has been for overseas companies, especially from the United States, in the aftermath of 11 September, to delay plans for investing abroad. That reflects worsening global economic conditions. Invest UK continues to register successes and receive fresh inquiries from north America and our other traditional sources of foreign investment in Europe and Asia-Pacific. We are confident that we are maintaining the United Kingdom's position and attracting more inward investment than any other European nation.

David Amess: Sadly, I do not share the Minister's confidence. Will he explain to the House how, according to an Ernst & Young survey, the number of inward-investment projects coming to Britain has dramatically fallen in the past six months? Is not it a fact that, under the previous Conservative Government, there was a competitive advantage that this wretched and incompetent Government have completely frittered away as a result of increased taxation and more regulation and red tape?

Alan Johnson: We are all in danger of getting vibration injury when the hon. Gentleman asks a question in the House. He has not kept abreast of what has been happening in the global economy in the past six months. With regard to his question, the OECD report published only this week stated that the UK was
	"better placed to weather the downturn than its other 29 members."
	The recent economic intelligence unit report confirmed that the UK has been one of the most attractive business locations in the world for the past four years and said that we were likely to remain so for the next four years. We are third in the world at attracting inward investment and the No. 1 in Europe. That is a splendid record, especially in comparison with that of the previous Conservative Government.

Andy Reed: While I recognise the importance of inward investment—as a former economic development officer, I can say that my colleagues and I spent a lot of time trying to attract it—does the Minister agree that the vast majority of jobs in constituencies such as Loughborough will come from the growth of local firms and, in particular, an innovation and science base in places such as universities? What measures is he taking to ensure that those firms and other places receive equal support in growing small and local jobs? In particular, may I refer him to companies such as DataLink Ltd. in my constituency, an engineering firm that has seen 37 per cent. growth last year and doubled its work force?

Alan Johnson: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point and speaks from some experience. We set out earlier this year in a White Paper our plans to help local businesses to develop the good ideas that emerge from our universities and translate them into good products on the market. In terms of inward investment, last year alone, Invest UK recorded 869 decisions to invest in the UK, which created 71,500 new jobs.

Robert Smith: Does the Minister recognise that one of the major attractions of this country for inward investment is the UK offshore oil and gas industry for production and exploration? Does he also recognise that the maintenance of the current infrastructure in the North sea is vital to the success of that industry and to the viability and attractiveness of future inward investment, and that nothing must be done to close down prematurely any of that existing infrastructure or damage that attraction and the ability to get the full potential out of the North sea?

Alan Johnson: In general, we have had some excellent announcements recently about investment in the North sea. However, my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy tells me that he would be very pleased to speak to the hon. Gentleman about the specific points that he makes.

John Whittingdale: The Minister completely failed to address the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess). The Ernst & Young study that showed the fall in inward investment is clear about what caused it. It points to declining competitiveness, rising costs and less flexible labour markets. The Financial Times has reported that, this year alone, about 8,000 jobs have been lost as a result of companies switching production to lower-cost countries overseas. Has it not come to something when even the European Commission reports that the regulatory burden in Britain is heavier than anywhere else in the whole European Union? Are we not now paying the price for that in lost business, investment and jobs?

Alan Johnson: I tend to think that behind that question is the suggestion that the introduction of the national minimum wage, and of the right to four weeks' paid holiday a year, is somehow affecting our competitive position in the world. That is just not the case. The previous Conservative Government had a pitiful record on attracting foreign inward investment. Under the Tories, foreign direct investment dropped to £7 billion in 1994. Under this Government, it had rocketed to £88 billion in 2000. We need no lessons from the Opposition on attracting inward investment.

Andy Burnham: The Minister is aware of the problems of the decline in manufacturing industry in my constituency, and I am grateful for his help in addressing them. Is he aware of the good news of the increasing role that small local companies are playing in my constituency—particularly innovative local companies that have gone from being small businesses to medium-sized businesses, such as Patak's, and Waterfields Bakeries? How does the Department propose to recognise and reward innovative good practice in small companies, and turn good ideas into business success stories?

Alan Johnson: My hon. Friend raises an important point. One of our main projects to encourage small businesses to innovate and be more creative is the SMART award—the small firms merit award for research and technology. I am pleased to announce that my right hon. Friend will release details later today of the latest 37 companies to benefit from the DTI SMART funding scheme. The SMART award has increased annual turnover in the economy by £2.4 million for every £1 million invested. It has boosted annual turnover and annual exports, and is part of the Government's commitment to help companies to turn new ideas and technology into prosperity and jobs.

Nuclear Waste (Liabilities)

Michael Jack: If she will make a statement on the arrangements for making adequate financial provision for future liabilities for the disposal of nuclear waste.

Brian Wilson: Provisions for future liabilities for the disposal of nuclear waste continue to be the responsibility of the individual nuclear operator concerned, be that public sector bodies such as the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority and British Nuclear Fuels plc, or private sector bodies such as British Energy. However, the right hon. Gentleman will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry made a statement to the House yesterday about the future management of public sector civil nuclear liabilities.

Michael Jack: I am delighted that the tabling of my question prompted the Secretary of State's early announcement. Has the Minister seen any of the comments by Friends of the Earth following that announcement? It claims that British Nuclear Fuels plc was bankrupt and
	"an expensive and highly dangerous liability".
	It also suggested that there should be no new nuclear development. Will the Minister take this opportunity to rebut those claims by Friends of the Earth? Will he also put on record that THORP and MOX have a good commercial future, and that his right hon. Friend's announcement yesterday should in no way be taken as a barrier to the further development of civil nuclear power in the United Kingdom?

Brian Wilson: From what the right hon. Gentleman has quoted, I would have thought that, by Friends of the Earth's standards, that response was fairly mild. Some people are irrevocably opposed to the nuclear industry in all its forms, and they will make their statements, comments and allegations. They certainly do not cause us to deviate from the course of securing a balanced energy policy for this country. The decision fully to go ahead with MOX was based on a report that demonstrated its significant viability and on the fact that most of the business was already in place. So I do not take those claims seriously. I believe that BNFL will have a successful future in the form in which it will operate, and I pay tribute to the work force and the management who, in recent times, have turned round many of the problems that undoubtedly existed.

David Drew: I welcome the statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Will my hon. Friend the Minister recognise the complexities of the nuclear industry and the need to consider its different component parts? The Magnox headquarters at Berkeley is in my constituency. Will he open his door, so that we can examine how properly to evaluate the way in which the industry should go forward from here? Such discussions are urgently needed.

Brian Wilson: The energy review being undertaken by the Cabinet Office performance and innovation unit is under way, and the nuclear industry and the wide range of questions attached to it is only one of the areas it is covering. My door is always open for discussions. A Magnox power station in my constituency is being decommissioned, so I would be pleased to discuss with my hon. Friend the future of Magnox, BNFL or any other aspect of the industry.

John Whittingdale: Yesterday the Secretary of State twice refused to answer this question, so perhaps the Minister will do so now. Does he accept that there is no possibility of proposals for new nuclear development being made until the Government take a decision on their strategy for handling radioactive waste, whatever the PIU report says in a couple of months? How can he justify the delay of up to seven years proposed by the Minister for the Environment, which will prolong uncertainty in the industry and put a blight on it?

Brian Wilson: I certainly do not think that my right hon. Friend avoided the question in any way, but it is somewhat pejoratively posed. In our view, there is no sequential arrangement that nothing will happen in the nuclear industry until the waste report appears; nor do I recognise the figure of seven years. Clearly, it is desirable to get answers on waste in a shorter time frame, working both nationally and internationally, but no one currently is making proposals for nuclear power stations. However, they may at any time and they certainly are not prevented from so doing by the factors to which the hon. Gentleman refers.
	If there is to be nuclear new build in this country, the time scale for working up those proposals and having them properly considered long before construction would itself be substantial. If such developments are to happen—that is a commercial judgment for the companies involved—there is no reason to suppose that they would happen sequentially; they could happen in parallel.

Stephen Ladyman: Does my hon. Friend agree that yesterday's announcement on civil liabilities frees BNFL to become the world-class company that we all believe that it should be, secures thousands of jobs around the country and opens up the opportunity for BNFL to lever in other expertise and begin a real attack on the foreign markets, particularly in the old eastern bloc where there are billions of pounds to be made by exploiting British expertise in the clean-up of those countries?

Brian Wilson: I agree with my hon. Friend. Much of the thinking behind the statement that my right hon. Friend made yesterday involved ensuring that BNFL can get on with its business, that morale can be raised and that there is no shadow hanging over the company. On that basis, there is a great deal of interesting and potentially profitable work to be done. That is the role for BNFL, and it will enable the skills and excellence in the company to flourish.

Sellafield

Michael Weir: If she will delay support for the extension of the MOX facility at Sellafield, pending the results of the energy review.

Brian Wilson: No. My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Health and for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs announced their decision on the justification of MOX manufacture on 3 October. The commissioning and operation of the Sellafield MOX plant is now a matter for BNFL, subject to the satisfaction of the relevant regulators.

Michael Weir: I thank the Minister for that answer, but does he agree that, whatever our personal views on nuclear power, it is folly to proceed with the plant before the energy review group reports on whether the UK should have further new nuclear power stations? I do not know about him, but we do not yet know what the review group will recommend, and pressing ahead with the plant has already caused concern about pollution in the Irish sea. I believe that two court cases have been brought by the Irish Government, and, obviously, new possibilities as to the operation of the MOX plant have been raised following 11 September. Would it not be the ultimate irony if the energy review group recommended against new nuclear stations in the UK while the new plant is allowed to operate, manufacture and reprocess fuel for others?

Brian Wilson: I see no such irony. The case for the MOX plant has been fully tested and it was recently subject to an independent economic consultancy report, which found the project to be very healthy economically. Many problems that the hon. Gentleman claims to exist have been tested in the courts in response to an action by Greenpeace, which was thrown out.
	It was not the Irish Government but the Irish political party Fianna Fail that put out advertisements at the weekend. According to Ireland's own competent monitoring body, the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland, at the highest estimate Sellafield would account for less than 2 microsieverts per year. The average intake in Ireland is estimated to be between 2,000 and 20,000 per year. I think that that puts things into proportion.

Bob Blizzard: Does my hon. Friend agree, in the context of the energy review, that if we are to focus firmly on security of supply as well as on environmental matters, it is essential for us to maximise the extraction of gas from the North sea, and also to push ahead with renewables such as offshore—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The main question is about Sellafield. The Minister cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's question.

Nick Gibb: Both the thermal oxide reprocessing and the mixed oxide plants are to be transferred to the new Liabilities Management Authority. What will be the commercial arrangement between the LMA and BNFL for the operation of those plants? Will BNFL operate them on a management contract basis, with the LMA taking the risk, or will BNFL continue to shoulder any losses, although it will no longer own the plants?

Brian Wilson: The details of the arrangements will be in the White Paper to be published in the spring, but there is certainly a commitment to transparency. That is part of the reason for the establishment of the LMA: the aim is to separate historic liabilities from current and future liabilities, and to apply that same principle of transparency within the authority.

Postal Services

Mark Lazarowicz: What steps she is taking to improve postal services.

Patricia Hewitt: We have given the Post Office greater commercial freedom so that it can improve its services and performance. We have established a new independent regulator, which has set tough standards of service for Consignia and is monitoring them closely. New licensed operators will also help to give consumers more choice and better services.

Mark Lazarowicz: When I tell the Secretary of State that the Edinburgh postcode area recently topped the UK-wide list of complaints about delivery services, she will understand my concern. What progress is being made with the implementation of the conclusions of the performance and innovation unit review of postal services? May I ask her to intervene in the meantime, and ask Consignia to improve delivery services for my constituents?

Patricia Hewitt: I entirely understand and share my hon. Friend's concern. The service currently provided by Consignia is simply not good enough. The PIU report, which he mentioned, was more to do with the future of the post office network than with Royal Mail deliveries, but we are working effectively with the company to implement the recommendations. The "Your Guide" pilot, in particular, will help those using post offices to obtain information on a wide range of other Government services. That is going very well.
	Let me make it clear that I expect management and unions, which have been asking for more commercial freedom for years, to work together to use the freedom that we have given them to deliver a better service to customers, in my hon. Friend's constituency and everywhere else.

Richard Page: Does not that response show how far adrift the Secretary of State is from reality? Is she not aware that over the last two years there has been a record number of sub-post office closures? Is she not aware of the appalling industrial relations that have led to poor deliveries? During the last election, many of my constituents in the Watford area did not receive their postal votes. Is she not aware of the record losses of Parcelforce, which are hitting day after day? Is she not aware of the international competition that is coming along? Is she not aware of Monday's announcement of Consignia's losses, £100 million of which are operating losses? That is particularly important and worrying.
	Will not the Secretary of State do the decent thing—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is enough.

Patricia Hewitt: I am not going to take any lectures on the Post Office's performance from the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues who had the opportunity when they were in government to give the Post Office the commercial freedom that the management and the unions wanted. If the previous, Conservative Government had done that when it should have been done, years ago, the company could have begun to get a grip on what are very deep-seated problems.
	I make it very clear that steps have already been taken to strengthen Consignia's management and improve the company's performance. Earlier this year, a new finance director, Marisa Cassoni, joined the board, and the company is now recruiting a chief executive for the new Post Office Ltd. to run the post office network. We have also appointed Allan Leighton as a non-executive director to take a special interest in the post office network. Consignia's chairman, Dr. Neville Bain, who has led the company through this first stage of reform and modernisation, will stand down as chairman when his term expires at the end of this year. We will appoint a new chairman as quickly as possible.

Martin O'Neill: Does my right hon. Friend share my disappointment in the half-yearly figures that have been announced? In some respects, she has anticipated my comment that the patience of many of us who regard ourselves as defenders of a public postal service is becoming severely strained. We require drastic steps of an even more far-reaching character than those that she has announced to ensure that the postal service can be successful in the public sector.

Patricia Hewitt: I entirely share my hon. Friend's view of Consignia's results which were announced on Monday. They were disappointing and reflect the deep-seated problems within the company and the challenges facing it in a rapidly changing market for postal services not only in the United Kingdom but across Europe. I am glad to say that, in the wake of the report by Lord Sawyer on industrial relations in the firm, management and unions have started to work together much more effectively. They have just renewed the commitment to a moratorium on those industrial difficulties. I have made it quite clear that we expect, and the independent regulator also expects, the company significantly to improve its performance. I hope that that is precisely what the management and the unions together will now deliver.

Vincent Cable: Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that one of the consequences of the disastrous losses being recorded at Consignia is that it will no longer be able to sustain by cross-subsidy the universal service obligation under which letters are delivered across the United Kingdom at a constant rate? Does she intend to intervene to ensure that the Post Office's social obligations in that respect are fully maintained?

Patricia Hewitt: I do not accept the assumption in the hon. Gentleman's question, but remind him that the first duty of the regulator whose post we created in the Postal Services Act 2000 is to maintain the universal service obligation. The regulator will ensure that that universal service is indeed delivered right across the country.

Tony Lloyd: My right hon. Friend is right to take no lessons from Opposition Members, certainly on the issue of post office closures. However, although the action that she is taking is very welcome, there is a mounting crisis not only in rural post offices but in urban sub-post offices, which are under enormous pressure because of profitability and other external factors such as crime. What action can the Government take to ensure that we maintain a high-quality and well-represented sub-post office network in urban areas such as mine where that network is vital?

Patricia Hewitt: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend on the enormous importance of post offices not only in rural communities but in deprived urban areas, including parts of my own constituency. The service delivered by local post offices to deprived and remote local communities is essential. He will be aware, of course, that there has been a welcome reduction in the rate of closures and that we are taking steps, including a formal requirement placed on the Post Office, to maintain the rural network and to prevent avoidable closures. We are also working closely with the post office network—for example, in the "Your Guide" pilot to which I referred in an earlier answer—to strengthen and expand the services that local post offices can offer and thus attract more people to them.

Henry Bellingham: I am glad that the Secretary of State said that she believes in rural sub-post offices, but is she aware that many of those offices in Norfolk and Suffolk are threatened as a direct consequence of the Government's decision to pay pensions and other benefits by direct debit? Surely that is another example of a Government with urban-based values who do not understand the countryside.

Patricia Hewitt: That is nonsense and I regret that the hon. Gentleman does not understand the real benefits to be gained by modernising the system of benefit payments, including of course the reduction of fraud. We are working with Postcomm, as recommended by the PIU report, to ensure that financial assistance is given to post offices in rural communities to sustain that network. We have already invested nearly £500 million pounds in modernising the post office network and we have ring-fenced a further £250 million for support of the rural network and modernisation of the urban network.

Fiona Mactaggart: I know that Consignia can work, because when a post office in my constituency closed, it acted quickly and reopened it within a week, following a campaign led by me. In Slough, one in six first-class letters are not delivered on the following day and there is no way that the Christmas post will be delivered. I met the local management of the Post Office yesterday, who at present are blaming its staff. The Post Office is not delivering for the people of Slough. What message does my right hon. Friend have for it to ensure that the Post Office locally delivers and that the post is delivered to addresses in my constituency?

Patricia Hewitt: I must congratulate my hon. Friend on the success of her campaign in getting her post office reopened. As I have already said, I entirely share her concern and that of other hon. Members about the failure in some parts of the country to deliver the post on time or indeed, in some cases, to deliver it at all. The responsibility is on the management and unions to work together, as they are now doing much more effectively, to build on the recommendations of the Sawyer report on industrial relations to take advantage of the commercial freedom that our Government have given them and to ensure that they deliver both the post and better results.

Nigel Waterson: I invite the Secretary of State to rejoin the real world. Against a background of losses of £10 million a week, the consistent failure to hit delivery targets and truly dreadful industrial relations in the Post Office, does she agree with the view of the new boss of Royal Mail, who says that the second daily postal delivery is a "myth" and
	"There is no such thing as a second delivery"?

Patricia Hewitt: I have already made it clear that we have given the Post Office the commercial freedom for which it has long been asking and which, I regret to say, the Government whom the hon. Gentleman supported did not give it. It is a matter for Consignia to make firm proposals—at the moment, it is simply floating ideas—and the independent regulator that we have established will decide whether to accept those proposals, bearing in mind the statutory duty that we have placed on him to ensure that universal service is maintained.

Sub-post Offices

Elfyn Llwyd: What recent representations she has received from rural sub-post office operatives; and if she will make a statement.

Douglas Alexander: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry receives correspondence on a range of issues from numerous people working in the rural sub-post office network.

Elfyn Llwyd: I thank the Minister for that most unhelpful reply. Despite the tinkering at the edges by his Department to try to ensure that the rural network of post offices remains, 929 post offices have closed in the past two years. That is twice as many as in the two previous years. That means that the Government's initiatives are failing, and I question whether they really want to keep those post offices.

Douglas Alexander: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we do wish to maintain the rural network and I can clarify the figures for him. I welcome in particular the reduction in the rate of closures that we have witnessed recently—175 in the first half of this year, compared with 299 in the first half of last year. The Welsh figures may also be of interest to him. There were 13 closures in the first half of this year, compared with 68 last year.
	I would argue that the Government are determined to take real action to address some of the challenges that have been mentioned today. We commissioned the PIU report and accepted all its recommendations. There is now a formal requirement on the Post Office to maintain the rural network. We have established a new £2 million fund for community ownership, and rural transfer advisers are now working in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and many others around the country.
	The contrast could not be clearer between this Government's actions and the inaction and negligence of the previous Conservative Government, under whom 3,500 rural post offices closed between 1979 and 1997.

Derek Foster: I have represented my largely rural constituency for 22 years, and I assure my hon. Friend the Minister that post offices have always been under pressure. The rate of closure of rural post offices was far greater under Conservative Governments, when most rural services deteriorated substantially too. I am delighted with the Government's plans to ensure that rural post offices do not close as quickly as has been the case, but I hope that my hon. Friend will not underestimate the very big backlash that will be felt in rural areas if we fail in what we are trying to do.

Douglas Alexander: I certainly accept what my right hon. Friend has said, not least in terms of the importance that rural communities attach to their sub-post offices. However, the contrast could not be clearer between the actions of this Government, who have ring-fenced £270 million to meet the challenge, and those of the Conservative party, both in government and out.
	Last night, I took the opportunity to look at the Conservative election manifesto to find out what active proposals that party had for supporting the rural network. The Opposition had one proposal—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I advise the Minister that it is not for him to tell us the policy of the Conservative party.

David Heath: Will the Minister confirm that the date for the transfer of benefit payments to automated credit transfer remains April 2003? If so, when does he expect the systems for the Post Office card account to be operational?

Douglas Alexander: I can confirm the timetable for the universal bank, and that a great deal of detailed work is being done on the specific issues of systems and of the migration strategy that will ensure a smooth transition.

Pay Claims (NUM)

Harry Barnes: What correspondence her Department has received in the past three months concerning claims for equal pay for National Union of Mineworkers cleaners and canteen workers.

Brian Wilson: The Department has received in the region of 250 representations on this issue.

Harry Barnes: I am aware of the squabble between Arthur Scargill and my hon. Friend the Minister on this matter. Arthur Scargill claims that promises were made by my hon. Friend's predecessor that have not been lived up to. The Government have said that the claims from the former cleaners and canteen workers were not submitted in time by the NUM.
	Irrespective of the rights and wrongs of the matter, should not the cleaners' and canteen workers' claims be met? We are not talking about people who are wealthy, unless the odd one happens to have won the lottery.

Brian Wilson: I do not accept that there has been a squabble. The simple fact is that 1,300 claims were registered and have been met, at a cost of £14 million. Unfortunately, many claims were not registered. Sad to say, the responsibility for that lies not with this Government or even their predecessors, but with the unions representing the workers. That has left the ladies involved in a difficult position. I continue to meet them and to search for a rational solution to the problem. I have no doubt that the people concerned suffered unfairness, but my basic problem is that the claims were not registered.
	I am sure that all hon. Members know that many claims, with different circumstances but equal validity, are made to industrial tribunals and are time-barred. To create one category of time-barred claims that are accepted because we feel that the people involved were hard done by would leave another category of people—many tens of thousands of them—whose claims had been time-barred for different reasons in an equally anomalous and unfair position. We are trying to find a solution, but it is not easy.

Gerry Steinberg: I fully accept what my hon. Friend the Minister says, but there are a number of elderly canteen workers in my constituency who failed to get their compensation claims in in time. They see the colleagues with whom they worked receiving generous compensation, and it was not the workers' fault that the claims were not submitted in time. Does the Minister think that he could come up with a small amount of compensation to ensure that these people get a fair solution to the problem? It is within his power and he should do it in the name of fairness.

Brian Wilson: As I have just explained, in resolving one unfairness I would create another unfairness—unfairness to everybody else who has a tribunal claim time bar. There is no general power to waive the fact that no claims were registered. There must be specific grounds that would give a basis for these claims that would satisfy any accounting officer or auditor. We are looking at this and constantly meeting miners' representatives. I recognise the sense of injustice, but the fundamental problem is that these claims were never registered. Perhaps the people who failed to register these claims should begin to take some responsibility. I simply point out that the NUM has had a generous payment made to it for its administrative role in what would appear to be generally not registering claims.

Business of the House

Eric Forth: May I ask the Leader of the House for the business for next week?

Robin Cook: The business for next week will be as follows:
	Monday 3 December—Opposition Day [6th Allotted Day] until 7 o'clock on a subject of which we have yet to be notified. Followed by a debate entitled "The Government's Mismanagement of Wembley Stadium, Pickett's Lock and the Dome", also on an Opposition motion.

Eric Forth: Ah!

Robin Cook: I presumed that the right hon. Gentleman was aware of that.
	Tuesday 4 December—Second Reading of the Education Bill.
	Wednesday 5 December—A debate on European Affairs on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
	Thursday 6 December—A debate on the Common Fisheries Policy Reform and Sustainable Fisheries on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
	Friday 7 December—The House will not be sitting. The provisional business for the following week will be as follows:
	Monday 10 December—Second Reading of the Tax Credits Bill.
	Tuesday 11 December—Estimates Day [1st Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on waste management policy until 7 o'clock followed by a debate on the staging of the world athletics championships in the United Kingdom. Details will be given in the Official Report.
	At 10 o'clock the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates. The estimates to be agreed are as follows: Winter Supplementary Summary Request for Supply (HC 391), Vote on Account (For Generality of Government Departments) (HC 392), Vote on Account (House of Commons) (HC 393), Vote on Account (National Audit Office) (HC 394) and Vote on Account (Electoral Commission) (HC 395).
	Wednesday 12 December—Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund Bill.
	A Debate on International Terrorism on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
	The House may also be asked to consider any Lords messages that may be received.
	Thursday 13 December—Remaining stages of the Animal Health Bill.
	The House may also be asked to consider any Lords messages that may be received.
	Friday 14 December—The House will not be sitting.
	The House will wish to know that on Monday 3 December there will be a debate relating to the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between member states in European Standing Committee B. Details of the relevant document will be given in the Official Report.
	[Monday 3 December 2001:
	European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Union Documents: 13425/01, European Arrest Warrant and the Surrender Procedures between Member States. Relevant European Scrutiny Committee Reports: HC 152-vii (2001-02) and HC 152-viii (2001-02).
	Further to my earlier announcement about the Christmas recess, I can now confirm that the House will rise for the Christmas recess on Wednesday 19 December.
	The House will also wish to know that subject to the progress of business the House will not sit during the week commencing Monday 18 February 2002.

Eric Forth: I thank the Leader for giving us the business and the joyous news about recesses.
	Yesterday in answer to a rather loosely worded question, the Prime Minister confirmed at column 964 that he was committed to raising health expenditure to the European Community average by 2005. That leaves us completely in the dark as to what that commitment means. Was it a reference in cash terms? Was it a commitment to a percentage of gross domestic product as it will be in 2005? We need to know these things because there has been a lot of speculation as such large sums are involved. Will the Leader of the House provide time for an urgent statement to clarify what the Prime Minister meant, whether he has the Chancellor's support and agreement, how much money is involved and where it will come from? Before we embark on the great debate on health, which we all welcome, we need to know those key facts.
	Hidden away in the Chancellor's pre-Budget report is a reference to the increase in council tax—in local taxation—which suggests yet another alarming increase in the level and amount of council tax. That increase seems to be more every year. I suspect that the increase in local taxation will swallow up entirely what the Chancellor was boasting, the other day, would be an increase in pensions. We need an urgent debate on that, to establish—if nothing else—whether pensioners will be better off as a result of what the Chancellor was claiming, or whether, as I suspect, all the increases will more than disappear in the enormous increases in council tax that we are now getting.
	Mr. Speaker, you said yesterday—very helpfully for the House—
	"when Ministers refuse to answer questions, they are expected to indicate in their reply why they have refused by reference to the Government's code. The Public Administration Committee regularly looks into the pattern of answering and makes a report to the House. Again, Members aggrieved at a ministerial refusal to answer might get in touch with the Committee Chairman, the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright)".—[Official Report, 28 November 2001; Vol. 375, c. 971.]
	That was a very helpful suggestion, for which we are all most grateful. What I should now like the Leader of the House to do is to commit himself, and to guarantee, that we will have a regular slot for the Chairman of the Public Administration Committee to come to the House and initiate a debate on ministerial refusal to answer questions. I am confident—although I am sad to have to say this—that there are so many such incidents that the report will be voluminous and will require detailed answers from the Government as to why Ministers have refused to answer questions.
	Finally, it has been brought to my attention that, in the past, we have normally held our fisheries debate on the basis of a take-note motion, where the House had an opportunity to vote. For reasons that I think I well understand, it would appear that the Government have magicked that into an Adjournment debate, where the House will not have an opportunity to vote. What is the Leader of the House ashamed of? What have the Government got to hide? Why will they not submit themselves to the opinion, the view and the vote of the House on such an important issue as fisheries, but instead try to slip it through by some sleight of hand? We need to know.

Robin Cook: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for greeting what he described as the joyous news about the recesses. We are approaching the season when joyous news is appropriate, although I ask myself how he and I will pass that time without being able to exchange views every Thursday.

John Bercow: With great difficulty.

Robin Cook: The hon. Gentleman is probably correct.
	On the issue of NHS spending, the position is not confused—

Eric Forth: Oh!

Robin Cook: If the right hon. Gentleman is confused, let me try to elucidate. The commitment that was originally given by the Prime Minister, and to which I understand the leader of the Liberal Democrats was alluding, was that within five years of March 2001 we would be at the average for European spending on the health service—that is an average expressed as a percentage of gross domestic product. I am pleased to inform the House that, over the past four years, we have been able to approach that average at the rate of 0.1 per cent. of GDP each year, so we are on course to meet the average—[Interruption.] No, we are on course to meet the average by the time that my right hon. Friend mentioned. I am entertained that Opposition Members should find that they are not impressed by 0.1 per cent. of GDP as an increase. That may of course reflect the fact that during their period in office they never came remotely near increasing NHS spending by 0.1 per cent.—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman and I can put a date in our diaries for the debate in March 2006 when we see whether we have achieved that target. All I can tell the House at present is that we are on course, and in five years I look forward to receiving the right hon. Gentleman's congratulations on our having succeeded—

Eric Forth: That is not what the Prime Minister said.

Robin Cook: I have repeated what the Prime Minister said initially—in five years from March 2001.
	On council tax, I can inform the House that the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions will be making a statement on council allocations on Tuesday next week. I suggest that hon. Members do not get particularly excited about what they may read in the papers before the announcement.
	I listened with great care to what the Speaker said yesterday in relation to questions. I also noted that he invited colleagues to raise the matter with the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), as the Procedure Committee is carrying out a major study of questions. Obviously, that is a legitimate matter for the Committee to consider and I am sure that we shall return to it. In the meantime, I am pleased to tell the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) that I shall be meeting the Chairman of the Public Administration Committee next week and no doubt if he wants to express views to me I shall be happy to listen to them.
	Lastly, I have no strong views on whether the fisheries policy is debated on the Adjournment of the House on a take-note motion. I shall take the right hon. Gentleman's views to heart and consider them, but the House can divide on an Adjournment motion if it wishes, and it has done so frequently.

Dennis Skinner: I am sure that the Leader of the House heard the exchanges with the Minister for Industry and Energy just before half-past 12, in relation to the payments of equal value for the canteen workers and cleaners. Does my right hon. Friend think that, as the matter has not been fully cleared up, the Minister needs to make a full statement so that we can explain to him that, in the House of Lords judgment in the mid-1990s, when almost every pit in Derbyshire closed and the structure of the National Union of Mineworkers had been completely destroyed, no one was available to tell those canteen workers of their rights, despite the fact that the House of Lords called on Ministers to use a broad-brush approach and make ex gratia payments?
	Ex gratia payments have been a feature of every Government since I have been a Member of Parliament. There is no bar to them. If my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy needs a way round this, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) provided it for him a few weeks ago. This is a very important moral issue. The people who worked in the canteens, who saw the industry smashed, the structure of the NUM destroyed and who were unable to make their claims, should be allowed to make them, just like those 400 people in Nottinghamshire and elsewhere who managed to get ex gratia payments.

Robin Cook: I understand the concerns of those who have not been included in the payments. I remind the House that the Government have fully met their commitment that they would make such payments to all those who were included in the submission that was made to the courts. I understand my hon. Friend's feelings in relation to those who were not included in the several hundred who were submitted to the court. As I entered the Chamber, there was a considerable and vigorous exchange on this matter. I am sure that it will continue to be a matter of debate and that he will, no doubt, look for other opportunities, such as that which he has just taken, to press the point.

Paul Tyler: May I ask the Leader of the House to clarify the arrangements for announcing the subjects of Opposition Supply days. The business statement indicated that no subject has yet been allocated for the first half of the debate on Monday, so it seems that many Members will find out what the subject is only when they come to the House and read the Order Paper. Will that now be standard practice? If so, the Liberal Democrat party will take advantage of that, too.
	The exchanges this afternoon, as well as those earlier in the week, show the essential need for a full day's debate on the economy, which we always used to have at this time of year, whenever the Chancellor made a major statement. Indeed, the exchanges that have just taken place reinforce that view.
	There are few advantages of sitting on the Opposition Benches compared with sitting on the Government Benches, but the Leader of the House may like to note that one advantage is that we can see the expressions on the faces of his colleagues when the Prime Minister answers questions. The expression on the Chancellor's face when his right hon. Friend replied to a question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) was a picture to behold. It is therefore clear that some questions remain to be answered by the Chancellor and his colleagues, and that that debate on the economy is surely urgent.
	Finally, may I ask the Leader of the House to give an undertaking that if, as seems likely, the Lords messages on Wednesday 12 December contain some extremely important views from them on the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill, not least from his Labour colleagues in the other place, we will be able to give them precedence over the debate on the international situation? That latter debate is simply on the Adjournment of the House. The issues that relate to that Bill are, of course, matters for votes, and I suspect that hon. Members on both sides of the House will feel that those critical issues should not be rushed through the House, especially after our experiences in recent weeks. Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that there will be proper time for debate and Divisions on those extremely important issues and that, if necessary, the debate on the international situation will be moved to the next day, when there need not be a vote?

Robin Cook: It is important that the House should have another full day's debate on international terrorism, because there is a lot of unfinished work yet to be done. I know that many Members will wish to take part in the debate, and we have had a full turnout on previous occasions. I would be reluctant to lose any time from that debate.
	I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about Lords messages. I think that I am correct in saying that, at present, no amendments have been made to the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill in the House of Lords. We must obviously monitor the situation closely and consider where we are if amendments are carried. At present, however, I see no reason to interfere with the arrangements that I have outlined.
	I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on studying the faces of my honourable colleagues. We welcome close scrutiny of our faces in all circumstances and at all times. If anything, I have probably had rather more comment in the press about my face than I would necessarily have volunteered for. I can only repeat that the Government are on course to deliver their target, which is a matter of unity among my colleagues.
	I share the hon. Gentleman's surprise about the position in which I have been placed in relation to Monday's business. I cannot recall an occasion in my time when we have been left in the dark about what the Opposition wish to debate. There is a case for perhaps turning up for a mystery debate. However, if the Opposition really knew what they wanted to criticise the Government on, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst should have been able to tell us today.

John Smith: I thank my right hon. Friend for raising the matter of the British Government's contribution to the World Health Organisation study into deep vein thrombosis related to air travel? I have received a letter pointing out that the House will be notified shortly as to what that contribution will be. However, I draw his attention to the fact that the first study group will meet in Geneva on 13 December, so it would be appropriate for the Government to report to the House before then.

Robin Cook: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his point. I take this opportunity to congratulate him on the assiduity with which he has pursued a very serious issue that is of great public concern. I note what he says about the forthcoming meeting and I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health to his comments.

George Young: My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) asked the Government for an early statement to clarify their policy on health. In his response, the Leader of the House, far from clarifying it, confused the position. Yesterday the Prime Minister was asked to commit
	"himself to raising health expenditure in our country to the European average by 2005. Is that still the policy of his Government?"
	He replied:
	"Of course it is."—[Official Report, 28 November 2001; Vol. 375, c. 964.]
	A few moments ago, the Leader of the House said that the year was 2006. Which is it?

Robin Cook: As I understand it, the leader of the Liberal Democrats asked my right hon. Friend to confirm the commitment that he gave in 2000 to meeting the average of gross domestic product spent on health.

Eric Forth: No.

Robin Cook: That is exactly the question that the leader of the Liberal Democrats asked the Prime Minister. In 2000, my right hon. Friend said that we would meet that target within five years of the end of that financial year, so we will meet it in the financial year 2005-06. There is no room for divide here.

Michael Clapham: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 454?
	[That this House recognises this Government's endeavour to improve health and safety in the workplace; and welcomes the campaign by Prospect to increase the resources available to the HSE to improve the effectiveness of inspectors to cut deaths and injuries at work as well as to reduce the number of people suffering work-related ill health; and recognises that if the targets set out in Revitalising Safety and Health and Securing Health Together are to be met there must be more inspectors in the field and more resources for the HSE as well as local authority inspectors to ensure working people are safe at work.]
	The early-day motion stands in my name and supports the campaign run by the trade union, Prospect, which represents employees of the Health and Safety Executive. It calls more for resources for the executive.
	Last year, fatalities in industry increased by 32 per cent., but the number of inspectors out in the field is only 613. There is a drastic need for more resources so that we can recruit more inspectors. Will my right hon. Friend consider holding a debate on health and safety at the earliest possible opportunity?

Robin Cook: That is a matter of great concern and interest to those who work in industries that have a poor health and safety record. I commend the HSE's work, which I know at first hand from my constituency. I assure my hon. Friend that the Government are committed to making sure that the HSE can fulfil the functions that Parliament confers on it. If that means resources, I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions will consider that.

John Baron: May I press the Leader of the House on the Government's timetable for raising health expenditure to the EU average? The Prime Minister clearly stated yesterday, as Hansard records, that that would happen by 2005. Yet today, the Leader of the House says that the timetable has slipped by a full year—in 24 hours. Can the statement be clarified?

Robin Cook: I am happy to repeat my earlier comments that the commitment that my right hon. Friend confirmed yesterday was made not yesterday but in 2000. He said that in the financial year 2005-06, we would meet the European average. [Hon. Members: "No."] I find it entertaining that Conservative Members, who fought the general election on a commitment to cut health spending, ask us when we will succeed in raising it to the European average. If Conservative Members ever got their hands on the Dispatch Box, we would not approach the European average but fall away from it.

Ann Cryer: Will my right hon. Friend consider holding a debate on the problem of the growing waiting lists in the Bradford metropolitan district for Asian women who want to learn English? They are enthusiastic about it, but they frequently have to wait for more than a year to join one of the excellent classes in the adult education centres.

Robin Cook: I entirely concur with my hon. Friend about the importance of that. It is part not only of integration but emancipation for Asian women that we make all possible opportunities available to them to learn English and achieve the skills and qualifications that they need to play a full part in our society. Britain has gained immensely from the rich contribution to our economy of Asians who have made Britain their home. We should give them every opportunity to use their talents.

Michael Spicer: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider providing time to discuss the impact of data protection legislation on Members of Parliament when they carry out their constituency work? I am sure that he knows that there is growing anxiety among hon. Members of all parties about that. Changes in legislation that perhaps grant Members of Parliament some element of privilege may be required.

Robin Cook: I am not sure that I can promise a debate on the matter. However, I should be happy to hear from any hon. Member who is encountering specific problems that are related to data protection when carrying out their constituency work. I shall pass on the information to the Home Office.

Alice Mahon: I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 489.
	[That this House notes the call of Amnesty International for a public inquiry into the mass killing of Afghan prisoners at the Qala-i-Jhangi Fort on 25th and 27th November; conscious of the presence of British and American special forces on site during the massacre and the heavy bombardment of the prisoners by the US Air Force, calls upon Her Majesty's Government to support the setting up of such an inquiry; further notes that the Northern Alliance commander of the Fort, General Dostum, is a notorious killer with a long record of war crimes; and reminds Her Majesty's Government and the US Government of the international opprobrium which still surrounds General Ariel Sharon resulting from his 'indirect responsibility' for the massacres in the Sabra and Chatilla camps in Lebanon in 1982, which though committed by others, would not have been possible without his involvement.]
	Will my right hon. Friend ask the Government to make a statement on the matter? Will he also ask them to state clearly that the perpetrators of the massacres in Kabul and elsewhere, whichever side they are on, will answer for their war crimes at an international criminal court convened by the United Nations?

Robin Cook: Although I welcome any further information that my hon. Friend wishes to produce, I am not aware of massacres in Kabul. The relative orderliness of life in Kabul has been a remarkable feature of events since the defeat of the Taliban. The great majority of the population have welcomed the defeat and disappearance of the Taliban.
	We do not have full information on events in the fortress at Mazar-i-Sharif. It is plainly desirable to acquire more information, and considerable debate will continue on the matter. International law is clear: prisoners' human interests and needs should be respected. However, it is also robust in providing that those who are combatants need not expect to be treated as prisoners of war. The matter for debate is whether the response was appropriate for prisoners who had armed themselves with kalashnikovs, mortar guns and a tank and, in those circumstances, whether it was right to regard them solely as prisoners.

Roy Beggs: Can the Leader of the House tell us whether there are obstacles to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee meeting in Northern Ireland? Can I have his assurance that he will look into that matter and help facilitate us having such a meeting in Northern Ireland?

Robin Cook: Offhand, I am not sufficiently familiar with the Standing Orders to give a categorical assurance to the hon. Gentleman. Personally, I see no problem with the Committee meeting in Northern Ireland. I will be happy to examine the matter and write to him.

Denzil Davies: My right hon. Friend was asked by the shadow Leader of the House about next Thursday's debate on the motion for the Adjournment, which will be fairly specific because it relates to the common fisheries policy. I think that I heard that there will be a debate on Wednesday on something that is perhaps less specific, described as European affairs. Previously when we have debated European affairs we have been able to hang our speeches on voluminous Commission documents. Are we going to be able to do that this time?

Robin Cook: As somebody who has introduced many of those debates in the past, I can say with confidence that hon. Members will have all the European documents that any human being could possibly wish for.

Christopher Chope: Are we going to have a statement from the Government on the farce and scandal of the individual learning accounts? The Secretary of State for Education and Skills told the House:
	"People who already hold ILAs have until 7 December— six weeks—to use them".—[Official Report, 6 November 2001; Vol. 374, c. 129.]
	Some 1.2 million people received letters from the Government giving them that assurance, but that assurance was broken last week by the Government, without any notice at all and without the House being informed, and more than 1 million ILA holders have now been told that they cannot take up their accounts by 7 December. Is that not scandalous? Why do the Government not come along to the House and admit that it is a farce that deserves to be put under close scrutiny by hon. Members, and what message—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Robin Cook: I am slightly at a loss to understand how the Government can have broken a commitment on 7 December when we are still a week away from that date. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills has written to all hon. Members for the relevant constituencies, advising them that any registered holder of an ILA will have that registration honoured.

David Clelland: My right hon. Friend will know that Rolls-Royce today announced further job losses across the United Kingdom, many of which are in the north-east. Our region can ill afford to lose those skilled jobs. He will also be aware that the north-east continues to have the highest unemployment in the UK and too often comes bottom of important social and economic indices. We cannot afford to wait for regional government to begin tackling those issues, so can we have an early statement from the Government on when and how they are going to tackle regional disparities, which have gone on for too long and are too great?

Robin Cook: I share my hon. Friend's concern about the impact on his constituents and others of job losses in the present circumstances. I understand why he wants to press for an opportunity to ensure that it is raised in the House, and I will convey his comments to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

Robert Key: Would the Leader of the House let us have a debate as soon as possible on the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation? That would give us the opportunity to debate the age of Greek aircraft and the competence of the Greek Air Force to distinguish between tourists and spies. Does he realise that there is growing anger in Wiltshire that the Greek Government seem to have the resources, time and energy to pursue plane spotters, but do not have the resources, time and energy to pursue the assassination of Britain's defence attaché in Athens only a couple of years ago? Does he also realise that that is a scandal and makes Greece look ridiculous?

Robin Cook: I remember the assassination of our defence attaché and I visited Athens at the time to express my concern. We continue to assist in any way that we can in tracking down those who were responsible for the assassination, to ensure that they are brought to justice and that the terrorist threat is eliminated.
	On those British citizens who have been detained on a charge of espionage, I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern and the broad concern of the British public. That is why we have raised the matter at a variety of levels—between the Prime Ministers, between the Foreign Secretaries, between the European Ministers and between the Defence Ministers—and why we will continue to press Britain's concerns.

David Chaytor: Following the welcome statement yesterday on the future management of the financial liabilities of the nuclear Railtrack, given the continuing debate about the future management of radioactive waste—that held by British Nuclear Fuels, the Ministry of Defence and private generators—and given the continuing debate about the role of nuclear generation in the future mix of energy supply, does my right hon. Friend agree that there is an overwhelming case for a debate on the future of the nuclear industry? Does he agree also that it is remarkable how little time is given to debating the industry in the House? Had more time been given over many years, perhaps fewer mistakes might have been made. Can he find Government time for a debate on the industry in the near future?

Robin Cook: I shall happily add that request to the growing list of requests that I have for debates. Of course, there are other ways in which my hon. Friend can seek an opportunity to raise the matters to which he has referred.
	We attached importance to ensuring that the House received a full oral statement at the earliest possible opportunity after the BNFL statement, and that took place yesterday. I cannot promise that there will be a further opportunity in the Chamber to debate these matters next week.

Gregory Barker: The Government's position on their commitments to health spending is still extremely murky. May we have an early statement to clarify what the Government mean by "European average"? Does that refer to Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals, or does it mean the European Union? If we mean the EU, is it the EU as constituted, or is it the EU in 2005 or 2006, which could include the accession of several countries from eastern Europe? If that is the case, are the Government hoping that the average will come down and the EU will meet us halfway? Could we have a specific percentage target?

Robin Cook: I am not sure to what extent the hon. Gentleman's question has illuminated this issue. I rather suspect that if we took the wide interpretation that he is proposing, we would already have surpassed the average gross domestic product. Therefore, I am happy to put him at rest on this point. When we have referred to the average, we have been referring to the existing members of the European Union.
	The hon. Gentleman believes, to use his word, that our commitment on health spending is "murky". I would welcome some clarity on what exactly is the commitment of Conservative Members on health spending, and whether they intend to meet the EU average or the average of the countries of central and eastern Europe.

David Winnick: The international community should keep a close watch on happenings in post-Taliban Afghanistan. That is the view of those of us who fully supported the military operation.
	Would it be possible to have a statement next week so that a Minister could announce a public debate on whether health care should be provided, as now, largely through the national health service, or through private insurance, which to a large extent is now Conservative policy? Would not it be useful if the country had such a debate so that we could ascertain whether our view on maintaining the NHS for all is one that is generally approved of? I am sure that it is.

Robin Cook: My hon. Friend makes a tempting suggestion for a debate. I shall promote it as a priority on my list of issues awaiting debate. I agree that it is clear from the evidence that has been produced during the week that the way in which we fund the national health service out of general taxation provides the most efficient, fairest and most universal system of health care. We look forward to the Opposition telling us whether they are willing to destroy that.

Michael Jack: I join those who have called for greater clarity from the Government on the question of health spending. Has the Leader of the House not realised that as Britain increases expenditure on health, so the amount of the European average will increase? If any other member state were also to increase its expenditure on health, the average would effectively translate into a moving target. Will he clarify how we are supposed to hit that target?

Robin Cook: These questions are descending from the entertaining into the pathetic. Despite the right hon. Gentleman's befuddled arithmetic, the fact is that we have closed the gap over the past four years. We shall continue to do so over the next five years, and we shall succeed in matching the average in 2005-06.

Jim Cousins: The Chancellor's pre-Budget report includes on page 114 an important commitment to review the fairness of public expenditure across the regions and nations of the United Kingdom. In light of the answer that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has already given to my hon. Friend the Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland), will he at least consider referring that issue and all issues related to my hon. Friend's points about rising employment problems in the north-east to the Committee of the Regions?

Robin Cook: My hon. Friend has identified a valid forum in which to explore the issue which, I know, is of great importance to him and other Members. It is vital to reflect the regional variety and dimension of the United Kingdom—one of the strengths of our country—in our debates and ensure that our forums reflect that adequately. I am pleased that the Government have given that commitment. From what my hon. Friend said, I take it that he welcomes that commitment, and I am sure that he and others will want opportunities to make sure that the Government deliver it.

Patrick McLoughlin: Will the right hon. Gentleman, as Leader of the House and a member of the House of Commons Commission, give the House the opportunity to discuss the facilities for visitors to the House? Does he agree that when constituents come to the House of Commons they should be treated equally and fairly? At present, they are not.

Robin Cook: I absolutely agree. Indeed, during the time in which I have been Leader of the House, I have reflected on the fact that, as a Parliament, we miss an immense opportunity to convey to the tens of thousands of people who come to Parliament the importance of the Commons as an expression of democracy in the United Kingdom. I welcome the fact that, at present, they have adequate opportunity to see our buildings, study our architecture and consider our history, but we should look at ways in which we can ensure that they also receive a message about the importance of a contemporary Parliament and its role in our democracy. I shall wish to explore that with the Modernisation Committee.

Derek Foster: Can my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on regional development agencies? That would give a Minister an opportunity to explain that the Government have insisted—rightly, to my mind—that those agencies are business-led. However, neither the chairman nor the vice-chairman of the regional development agency for the north-east of England are from the business sector, and it has just summarily got rid of representatives from the Confederation of British Industry and the chamber of commerce. If my right hon. Friend cannot find time for a debate, will he look into the matter and tell us what is going on?

Robin Cook: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's invitation but, if he will forgive me, I shall decline to dip my toe into that particularly hot water and leave it to the region itself to resolve the issue. However, on the generality of what he said, I am conscious of a number of regional issues that are a matter of legitimate public debate and interest; I am also conscious of our obligation as a Parliament to ensure that they can be ventilated. I certainly want to look at our procedures and opportunities to make sure that there are adequate chances for Members to raise issues of concern to their regions.

Pete Wishart: I wonder if the Leader of the House can help me. If a Bill is considered and passed on a Sewel motion in the Scottish Parliament, but is significantly amended by the House making aspects of it substantially different, should it not go back to the Scottish Parliament for further consideration and approval? If not, why not?

Robin Cook: The short answer is that I cannot help the hon. Gentleman without notice, but I shall reflect on his point. So far, we have not experienced the difficulty of amendments changing the character of the Bill so much that it would require a fresh Sewel motion. However, I can assure him that we maintain close contact with our colleagues in the Scottish Parliament. So far, that contact has worked to the advantage of both the Scottish Parliament and this place, but we shall certainly wish to discuss any such difficulties.

Llew Smith: Can the Leader of the House find time to arrange a debate on the charter of BBC Wales and language discrimination? That would enable us to debate the reasons why the vast majority of the people in Wales who do not speak the Welsh language are increasingly excluded from senior positions and why BBC Wales is now sacking people, not just because they do not speak the language but because their accent is not Welsh enough—that was agreed in a recent court ruling. We could also debate the reason why every controller of BBC Wales in the past 50 years has been a Welsh speaker and why 25 members of a 30-strong political unit are Welsh speakers. The vast majority of people in Wales are now being excluded or discriminated against by BBC Wales.

Robin Cook: My hon. Friend makes his point with great force and vigour. I expect that other hon. Members from Wales may wish to express a contrary point of view with equal vigour and clarity. I would strongly support the right of anybody to take part in broadcasting or any other activity, irrespective of their accent.

Anne McIntosh: Will the Leader of the House agree to the request from my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) for an early debate on the ministerial refusal to answer questions? The issue is the reply to my question about emergency legislation to prevent an application for interim review from Railtrack, and an answer that was given to my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May). Since when do internal communications cover draft legislation that is due to come before the House?

Robin Cook: Any draft legislation is necessarily the subject of internal communication within the Government. That is not particularly new, nor is it an invention of this Government, as opposed to the previous Government. I listened with care to what the Speaker said to the House yesterday. It is important that the House accepts his advice and pursues the matter through the two relevant Select Committees that he mentioned. I anticipate that in the fullness of time we will have a debate on the Procedure Committee's report on questions.

Gordon Prentice: Rolls-Royce is by far the largest employer in Pendle. It came as a real shock—a body blow—to learn from the company this morning that up to one third of the employees at the two Rolls-Royce plants in Barnoldswick, where I live, are to lose their jobs. My hon. Friend the Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) referred to the crisis in aerospace. Is not the situation serious enough for an early statement from the relevant Ministers to the House next week, to see what the Government can do to help the industry, which is in crisis? We all understand that the Government cannot force people back on to aeroplanes, but there are steps that the Government can take and should be taking to help that high-tech leading-edge industry, which needs our help now.

Robin Cook: I entirely understand why the impact of such a large number of job losses in my hon. Friend's constituency is a matter of deep concern to him and to his constituents. I am glad that he has had the opportunity of drawing the House's attention to that deep concern. I can assure him that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will be following the matter closely, and the Government will want to do anything they can to assist, within the reasonable bounds that my hon. Friend outlined. I shall make sure that my hon. Friend hears from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry as soon as possible.

Henry Bellingham: I refer the Leader of the House to the ongoing crisis in the countryside as a result of the foot and mouth epidemic. He is a countryman; he has lived in the New Forest, he spent much of the last Parliament at Chevening, and he spends a lot of time at the racecourse. He must understand the dismay. Has not the time come for the Government to arrange a full and comprehensive public inquiry? What is his personal view?

Robin Cook: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for polishing my rural credentials. I shall plead them in aid next time we have an exchange on rural affairs. The Government have appointed three separate inquiries into the foot and mouth episode. We have constructed them in a way that will enable us to learn the lessons as soon as possible and get on with them. I honestly believe that it is in the interests of the countryside and of all hon. Members that we get those answers and learn those lessons as quickly as possible, and that we do not devise new ways to delay finding out what we need to do next.

Andrew MacKinlay: The Leader of the House will note that the Opposition are to give us an Opposition day debate on the funding of the English national stadium. No doubt we will be expected to engage in the usual yah-boo and synthetic anger between the two Dispatch Boxes, and then the matter will be swept up. The question should have been put to the Prime Minister on Wednesday last week, and would have been if we had an effective Opposition. If I am expected to go through the Division Lobby with the usual ritual, I expect the Minister to tell us what mandates there were to hand over a large sum of money to a very profitable English soccer industry, where the money is now, when it will come back and how much will come back. I need to know those things before being expected to acquiesce by my silence to something that looks to me to be highly irregular.

Robin Cook: I assure my hon. Friend that silence is not something that I would ever expect to demand of him. I shall give my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, who will be speaking in that debate, advanced notice of his concerns. I share his sense of puzzlement about why the Opposition have singled out this subject for debate when they have failed to raise it with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister even though they have had ample opportunity to do so.

Nigel Dodds: Will the Leader of the House ensure that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland comes to the House to make an early statement clarifying the role and term of office of the de Chastelain commission in Northern Ireland? Given that the remit of that body runs out in February 2002, and in light of the Secretary of State's remarks yesterday, will he assure the House that there will be no further attempt to push back the deadline or to fudge the issue of the complete handover of all IRA weapons? Has it not come to the time when the people of Northern Ireland deserve a situation in which the republican movement gives up all its weapons or is put out of the government of this part of the United Kingdom?

Robin Cook: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will be answering questions in the House next Wednesday, when the hon. Gentleman and others can raise those issues with him. I shall continue to have close dialogue with him.

Alan Simpson: May we have a debate on GM contamination? My right hon. Friend will be aware of this morning's news that contaminated maize has turned up in a remote area of Mexico that is separated by some 60 miles and several years from the last recorded GM plantings in California. Given that the UK has paltry separation distances, that UK farmers cannot get insurance against GM contamination and that we have been consistently blocked from having a GM producer liability regime by the industry that wants to pursue the trials, could we have an urgent debate to dispel the public myth and criticism that UK policy is increasingly either in the pay or the pockets of a biotech industry that is currently driven by a bunch of crooks and shysters?

Robin Cook: I anticipate that there would be considerable difficulty for me, including with you, Mr. Speaker, if I were to assent to my hon. Friend's last proposition. I am aware of his vigorous views and I know that the issue to which he refers polarises opinions sharply.Evidence from Mexico or anywhere else is a matter that the Government will seriously consider as we take forward the debate.

Michael Fabricant: A few short weeks ago, I raised with the Prime Minister at Question Time the case of my constituent, Councillor Tony Lanchester, who was at that time suffering from rheumatoid arthritis, but could not be given the drugs that he needed because the South Staffordshire health authority did not have the money to prescribe them. I must tell you, Mr. Speaker, that, since then, he has died. He died because his immune system was reduced as he was not getting the drugs that he needed. A problem that all hon. Members face from time to time is that of health authorities hiding behind the National Institute for Clinical Excellence and saying that because NICE is investigating a drug, they cannot prescribe it. That is the not the case. Can we have a debate so that it is made clear to health authorities and all hon. Members that if a drug is available, a consultant who wishes to prescribe it may do so, even if it is being investigated by NICE?

Robin Cook: May I express to the hon. Gentleman and his constituents the deep sympathy of the whole House about the death of his constituent? When speaking about such issues, it is appropriate for all of us to respond with respect for the family concerned. This is not a matter that would be appropriate for a party political debate.
	I shall take on board what the hon. Gentleman said about NICE and refer his remarks to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. However, I think that the principle of NICE was right. We should have a central body that can consider with medical and scientific expertise the drugs that are coming on to the market and establish whether they represent a clinical advantage and value for money. That is appropriate in an age where it is important to ensure that we get value for money from our new, fresh investment in the health service. That must be the right way forward and I do not want to disturb that principle.

Paddy Tipping: The Leader of the House has already heard concern expressed from the north-east and the north-west about job losses in the aerospace industry. Given that 225 jobs were lost this morning at the Rolls-Royce factory at Hucknall, can we have an early opportunity to debate what short-term steps can be taken to maintain high-skill, high-technology, high-value jobs in a sector that obviously has a long-term future?

Robin Cook: My hon. Friend draws attention to an important aspect of this matter, which is that we should not lose a skilled, experienced work force through short-term difficulties, when we shall require that team to work and produce for Britain in the long term. I note that several points have been raised this afternoon by hon. Members concerned by the Rolls-Royce statement, and I am sure that Rolls-Royce will also note the deep concern that it will cause in Members' constituencies and in the Chamber.

Andrew Turner: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's concern at being repeatedly pressed on the question of health spending. However, that is nothing compared with the irritation of the Chancellor when he heard the Prime Minister's statement yesterday. The fact is that we get sharper and clearer answers from the Leader of the House than we could ever expect from the Prime Minister. Will he, therefore, tell us whether the Government's commitment to raising health expenditure refers to overall health expenditure in the EU, or merely to Government health expenditure in the EU? Will he also tell us whether the Government's commitment refers to total health expenditure in this country or merely to Government health expenditure in this country?

Robin Cook: I speak without having had an opportunity to examine the footnotes to the statistics but, as I understand it, we are discussing the overall envelope of health spending in both cases. But the great majority of that, whether we are considering the European Union figure or the UK figure, is public spending, and that will drive the increase. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments, but, I should be grateful if he did not try to dig a deep hole for me with regard to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

John Cryer: My right hon. Friend will be aware that there has been a proposal floating around for a few years now to the effect that there should be an EU-wide ban on cosmetics that have been tested on animals. I now find that, according to a letter from the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection, the European Commission has decided that such a ban might offend the sensibilities of the World Trade Organisation. This is disappointing, but hardly surprising as the Commission spends all its time kissing the corporate backside. Nevertheless, could we have a statement or debate on the issue?

Robin Cook: My hon. Friend raises a matter into which I would hesitate to enter without having had the opportunity to brief myself, but I note what he says. I share his concern, and the Government are committed to ensuring that we minimise the suffering caused to animals through animal testing, and to ensuring that, whenever possible, we proceed in ways that do not require animal testing. I am sure that my hon. Friends in the relevant Departments will wish to take on board his comments.

John Wilkinson: Will the Leader of the House bear in mind the clear commitment of the Government, notwithstanding the passage of the Greater London Authority Act 1999, to continue to have debates on London affairs on the Floor of the House? Following his statements today, it seems unlikely that the Government will find time for such a debate before Christmas. Is that because they are concerned that the Prime Minister's statement on the modernisation of the tube through a public-private partnership as the best way forward would be unsustainable in a debate, or is there some other reason that they are unwilling to reveal?

Robin Cook: I am happy to reveal that the reason why we are unlikely to have such a debate before Christmas is that there are two and a half weeks before the Christmas recess, and in the course of these proceedings I have heard enough bids for debates to fill up all that time. I assure the hon. Gentleman, however, that nobody in the Government imagines that this matter will not have further ventilation in the House and in public. We would expect there to be further discussions, and I have no doubt that hon. Members will wish to express their views in the course of them.

Martin Salter: Would my right hon. Friend care to take this opportunity to debunk some of the more fanciful reports in the weekend papers that the Modernisation Committee is about to recommend new working hours for the House? Will he confirm that the Modernisation Committee has not yet had the opportunity to discuss working hours or the parliamentary calendar, and that, when it does, there is not the remotest possibility of proposals to impose a nine-to-five culture on this place ever seeing the light of day?

Robin Cook: I hope that this does not disappoint any hon. Member, but my hon. Friend is correct. Claims that the House could ever meet from 10 am to 5pm are unsourced and unchecked with my Department. They are also total garbage. I am sorry that what was once a serious newspaper should have found it in itself to run that story without bothering to discover whether it has any credibility.

Bob Spink: Will the Leader of the House find time before Christmas for a debate to explore the energy options in the light of the performance and innovation unit energy review, which is due soon? That would enable us to ensure that we replace nuclear with nuclear to achieve a safe, secure, environmentally friendly and affordable energy supply for the medium and long-term future of this country.

Robin Cook: As the hon. Gentleman knows, energy policy is being reviewed and the nuclear component is part of that review. At an appropriate time, the House and its Committees will express a view on the issue.

Desmond Swayne: And finally, Mr. Speaker, is not the right hon. Gentleman's confidence in the Government meeting their health spending target based on the trick of including UK health spending in the European average? Any fool knows that UK health spending brings the European average down. If it is excluded, there is not a cat in hell's chance of the Government reaching the European average. Does not the very nature of this morning's exchanges confirm that we need at least a statement on the issue, if not a full debate?

Robin Cook: There is only one way in which to resolve the matter to the satisfaction of the House: my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills must arrange a seminar in the Grand Committee Room on how to calculate percentages. In the meantime, I say to the hon. Gentleman, as I said to the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), we have closed the gap over the past four years; we shall continue to close it over the next five. We await with great interest the opinion of Conservative Members on how much wider that gap would be if they ever got into office.

Points of Order

Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. At Question Time today, you again had the opportunity to slap down a Minister who started to speak about what he thought Opposition policy might be, this time by attempting to quote a manifesto. As that happens time and again, might it be advisable for you to issue either a further statement or free copies of "Erskine May" to all officials in all Departments, so that they do not prepare briefs that lead Ministers out of order?

Mr. Speaker: If it happens again, not only with Ministers, but with Back Benchers, I shall take the appropriate action.

John Baron: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Following your helpful statement yesterday relating to the Government's poor record in answering written questions, may I briefly highlight a particularly serious case involving the possibility of toxic ash being dumped in my constituency? I seek your advice.
	I wrote to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on 6 July, asking certain questions, and followed up with numerous phone calls. I wrote again in October, asking for a substantive answer. I received a holding reply. I tabled a written question at the beginning of November to which, two days later, I again received a holding reply. How can I put further pressure on the Secretary of State to answer, bearing it in mind that my constituents take the issue seriously?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman should read my statement carefully, because I gave advice to the House as to how hon. Members should pursue those matters.

Human Reproductive Cloning Bill [Lords] (Allocation of Time)

Hazel Blears: I beg to move,
	That the following provisions shall apply to the proceedings on the Human Reproductive Cloning Bill [Lords]—

Timetable

1. Proceedings on Second Reading, in Committee, on Consideration and on Third Reading shall be completed at today's sitting and shall be brought to a conclusion, if not previously concluded, at Seven o'clock.

Questions to be put

2. When the Bill has been read a second time—
	(a) it shall, notwithstanding Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any Question being put,
	(b) the Speaker shall leave the Chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.
	3. On the conclusion of proceedings in Committee the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question and, if the Bill is reported with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.
	4. For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 the Speaker or Chairman shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—
	(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
	(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
	(c) the Question on any Amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;
	(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.
	5. On a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

Miscellaneous

6. Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill at today's sitting.
	7. The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after commencement, and Standing Order No. 15(1) shall apply to those proceedings.
	8. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to proceedings on the Bill.
	9. No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken.
	10. No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to the Bill except by a Minister of the Crown.
	11. No debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise) and the Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.
	12. If at today's sitting a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) stands over to Four o'clock and proceedings on the Bill have begun before that time, the Motion for the Adjournment shall stand over until the conclusion of proceedings on the Bill.
	13. If the House is adjourned at today's sitting, or the sitting is suspended, before the conclusion of proceedings on the Bill, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.
	There are issues of such importance that we need to find time, perhaps at short notice, to ensure that UK law does what we in Parliament and the public whom we represent expect it to do. Human reproductive cloning is one such important issue. It is an issue on which we need to take action, and to do so now.
	I intend to set out the background to the legislation on these matters and to the judicial review that concluded that human embryos created by cell nuclear replacement—so-called cloned embryos—were not governed by the overarching legislation, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990.
	This is a matter of great importance, and it is not just theoretical. We are already aware of reports of an Italian who wanted to come to the United Kingdom to exploit what he considered to be a loophole in our law. Others may be tempted to do the same if the situation remains unchanged.

Oliver Heald: In January, did not senior lawyers in the other place—Lord Rawlinson, speaking for the Conservatives, and Lord Brennan, who is of a different political persuasion—warn that the interpretation that has now been accepted by the courts was likely? Is it not wrong that, in the 10 months since those clear warnings, the Government have done nothing to present the change to the House and correct a risky and worrying situation?

Hazel Blears: I shall deal with the legal position later. The Government took advice from senior counsel on the interpretation of the 1990 Act, and on whether it covered all kinds of embryos, including those created by cell nuclear replacement. We were advised that the Act was likely to involve a purposive construction, and that therefore all embryos were covered. Mr. Justice Crane held otherwise in the High Court, which is why we need to introduce the Bill today and why we need the allocation of time motion.

Alan Beith: The Minister is not merely allocating time, but trying to take all the Bill's stages in one day. What is the basis for her belief that in the time that it would take to handle the Bill properly, with intervals between its stages and consultation outside, this Italian—or anyone else—would manage to break what we thought the law was before the court decision? Surely it is unrealistic in the extreme to imagine that anyone could engage in that process during the time that it would take to scrutinise the Bill properly, rather than rushing it through.

Hazel Blears: It is difficult for me to speculate on what might happen, but we know that this individual has been threatening to use such a process for a long time. If he perceived a legal loophole here in the United Kingdom, he might seek to exploit it. We must bear in mind the advances made in America last week when considering whether the Bill should complete all its stages today.

Patrick Cormack: That does not answer the question. If the Government made a firm declaration of intent, and if it were known—as it would be known—that their passing of a sensible measure would be widely supported in the House, the Italian and anyone else would be deterred. There is no excuse for rushing the Bill through today, especially as many of us consider it very defective.

Hazel Blears: I think that it is a sensible measure, and I think it difficult for any of us to say that a message sent from the House will deter individuals from taking action. We have no way of knowing that. The only way to ensure that they are deterred is to pass the Bill today, and enshrine it in our law.

Ann Widdecombe: If the real danger is represented by the activities of this Italian, the Home Secretary has adequate powers—I have counsel's opinion to this effect—to exclude him under the Immigration Acts. That would give us time to devise some sensible legislation.

Hazel Blears: The appropriate course is to look at our legislation, impose the ban on human reproductive cloning that we promised as long ago as August 2000, and ensure that the Bill constitutes a clear legal statement of our position. Powers may well exist under other legislation, but they do not relate to banning human reproductive cloning; they relate to one individual. This is a much more sensible way to proceed.

Michael Fabricant: The hon. Lady will know that I generally support the Bill, but because up to three hours may be spent debating the allocation of time motion we may have only two and a half hours to debate its remaining stages. Although I wish the Bill to be passed, does she not accept that those arrangements are an outrage?

Hazel Blears: The solution lies in hon. Members' hands: we can debate the motion as quickly as possible and thereby maximise the time available to debate these very important issues. On Monday, the other place passed the Bill unamended in about five hours. I hope that we can achieve something similar in this place.

Oliver Heald: Did the hon. Lady read the debate in the other place and note the cacophony from Lords on both sides of the House? Time and again they pointed out how rushing the Bill through was a contempt of Parliament.

Hazel Blears: I read the debate at length. Many Members of the other place supported the Bill and wanted it to be enacted to ensure that the position is made clear.

Lynne Jones: I support the Bill. The problem is that the Government's proposals cover actions that are not imminent, whereas they exclude imminent associated actions such as the use of embryos created by cell nuclear replacement techniques.

Hazel Blears: The Bill is narrowly drawn, tightly focused and designed to concentrate on human reproductive cloning, about which there is broad consent in both Houses of Parliament and among the public. I do not think that a practice's imminent nature, although a consideration, is the sole issue.

Ian Gibson: Does my hon. Friend agree that immediate public reassurance on the point that she has just made is important, given the scare tactics that we have seen in the media and elsewhere? We need a decision right now, particularly on reproductive cloning.

Hazel Blears: My hon. Friend is right. Any hon. Member who has read the press reports in the past week or so will have been appalled by some of the scaremongering. It is vital that we give the public reassurance now.

Evan Harris: The Minister's answer to the previous question confirms what many of us feel: that the Government's legislative programme is driven more by their fear of press reports than by rational argument. If the Leader of the House was right in saying at last week's business questions that the Government's intent is to restore the status quo ante on embryo protection that preceded the judgment, why does the Bill provide only one form of protection for cloned embryos, which I support, but not for others?

Hazel Blears: Like any proper Government, we are rightly responsive to public opinion. The proposals were announced in August 2000, when we said that we would enshrine in statute a ban on human reproductive cloning. We intend to do that.
	As for the therapeutic uses of embryos created by cell nuclear replacement, we are appealing Mr. Justice Crane's judgment; I understand that it will be lodged this afternoon. We want to await the outcome of that legal process before determining what action we must take to ensure that embryos so created have the same protection as the 1990 Act offers embryos created by fertilisation.

Simon Thomas: The Minister correctly reminds us that the Government promised us this legislation in August 2000. Meanwhile, have not hon. Members on both sides of the House been urging the Government to introduce it much more quickly? I raised the issue in business questions four months ago but was told that a Bill would appear in good time. Have not the Government been caught out by a court case? Has not the Government's poor legal judgment forced us into this position? Why cannot we have enough time to consider the Bill and its implications such as those mentioned by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris)? Although I support the Bill, it is very flawed.

Hazel Blears: As I have explained, it is important that we act urgently. We intend to deal with the other matters when the outcome of the appeal is known. It is not a matter of rushing legislation that we promised to introduce or of our being caught out by the judgment. Counsel's advice, on which we acted, was that all embryos were covered by the 1990 Act. After proper litigation, the courts took a narrow, literal interpretation of the statute, as a result of which cell nuclear replacement embryos are not covered. We need to take immediate action in respect of human reproductive cloning, and to consider what we need to do on therapeutic cloning when we have the results of the appeal.

Ian Taylor: The Minister has been generous with her time, and I am grateful to her for giving way. The issue underlines the problem with rapid scientific advances. She is right that the judge took a literal interpretation of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 rather than taking account of the way in which cells are created. The House must consider whether this narrow Bill will give the protection against human reproductive cloning that all of us would like to see. We can revert to the importance of trying to protect and encourage therapeutic cloning.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not at this point discussing the contents of the Bill, but simply the allocation of time motion.

Hazel Blears: The hon. Gentleman raises some of the matters that I will address later in the debate. He makes an important point: in this fast-moving scientific world, we need to ensure that our legislation canencapsulate that dynamic process as well as capturing the law at a particular moment in time.
	As hon. Members will know, our concerns—reflected in this short Bill—were proved right when, at the weekend, we saw the outcome of research in the US, where researchers successfully created embryos by cell nuclear replacement as well as by parthenogenesis, which involves stimulating an egg to develop into an embryo without the use of sperm. The Government are lodging an appeal against the court decision this afternoon, but on an issue such as this, which has such considerable safety and ethical dimensions, immediate action is required, even though there is already considerable pressure on the parliamentary timetable. That is why the Bill, announced last year, has been introduced now.
	The Bill was debated in the other place on Monday and approved without amendment. It is a short Bill and its aim is clear. No one, as far as I am aware, has said that reproductive cloning should take place. I know that some people believe that the Bill should be wider, to include therapeutic cloning, but those issues are properly left for the outcome of the Government's appeal. The Government's immediate concern is that no one should think that they can come to the UK to exploit the current situation.
	The Government recognise the concerns of those who seek a wider debate, but we make no apology for the fact that the Bill has been introduced quickly after the judgment on 15 November, which raised doubts about the lawfulness of the ban imposed by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. The introduction of the Bill reflects the concerns raised frequently by Parliament and the public about the importance of ensuring that reproductive cloning cannot take place in the UK.
	In August 2000 we said that we would introduce a Bill to place the ban on human reproductive cloning on a statutory footing. I hope that we can achieve that aim this afternoon.

Oliver Heald: In opposing the programme motion, I start by referring to the exceptional speech made in the other place by the Bishop of St. Albans. I do not know whether we describe bishops as right reverend prelates, as they do in the other place; if so, I adopt that practice. He spoke of the importance of the issue and said that on certain issues a human being instinctively feels a shudder of recognition. He talked about moments of great art inspiring shudders of recognition and said:
	"we have become so seduced by our technological skills that the moral enormity of what we are doing and the sheer scale of our audacity have dwarfed and threaten to silence conscience, wisdom and that collective sensibility which alone ensure genuine moral freedom. I believe, however, that in this debate and in our nation there is a 'shudder of recognition' that human reproductive cloning is inherently and absolutely wrong and must be prevented at all costs."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 November 2001; Vol. 629, c. 35.]
	This is one of the great issues of our day and I am sure that the vast majority of the public and this House would agree with the bishop's views, as I do.
	There was also concern in the other place that, however urgent the matter might be, Parliament was not being given adequate time to consider it properly and that, as a consequence, the resulting law might not be effective. The same is true of the time being allowed in this place.
	A balance must always be struck between urgency and proper consideration, and between the Government's duty to act and the rights of Opposition parties—even when, as in this instance, the main Opposition simply believe that the Bill does not go far enough. A balance must also be struck between speed and effectiveness. All hon. Members will know of examples of when the House has legislated in haste and repented at leisure.
	The concerns expressed in the other place were felt not only by those such as Lord Alton, whose view is that all cloning should be banned, but by those who support so-called therapeutic cloning. Baroness Walmsely said:
	"we are debating today the protection of probably the most vulnerable form of human life. Yet we have been given only today to do it and to ensure that the legislation passes through all its parliamentary stages."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 November 2001; Vol. 629, c. 17.]

Michael Fabricant: I have been listening to my hon. Friend, and doing some calculations at the same time. Is he aware that, if the Second Reading debate lasts for 90 minutes, the Report stage for 15 minutes and Third Reading for 30 minutes, and if this debate lasts the full the three hours deemed appropriate by the Leader of the House, there will be only three and three quarter minutes in Committee to discuss each amendment selected by Mr. Speaker? Does my hon. Friend think that that is a reasonable amount of time?

Oliver Heald: As so often, my hon. Friend makes an important point. It is not merely a question of the amount of time devoted to each amendment. Parliamentary procedure is designed to allow proper reflection between the various stages of a Bill's progress through the House. We have First Reading, when we read the Bill. We have Second Reading, when the principles underlying the Bill are examined. We then have a period of reflection, during which we can decide what amendments are needed to cover the ambit of debate set out on Second Reading. Not every hon. Member gets a chance to take part in debate during the Committee stage, because of the arrangements involving Committees upstairs. A gap is therefore left after the Committee stage so that all hon. Members can study a Bill and decide how it should be amended on Report. Finally, we look at the whole thing again on Third Reading, and decide whether we like it. Without those gaps, people outside do not have the opportunity to contribute.
	The eyes of the world are on us today. This is an international issue. It prompted the American Congress to approve on Monday a motion, with a majority of more than 100, that bans all forms of cloning. The European countries have covered the issue in the relevant convention.
	This Parliament is the cradle of democracy. Hon. Members are admired across the world for the proper scrutiny that we give, or should give—

Tim Loughton: Used to give.

Oliver Heald: My hon. Friend says from a sedentary position that the House used to give proposals proper scrutiny. It does us no credit to deny democracy in a process such as we are about to embark on today.
	I accept that reproductive cloning should be banned, and that this is an urgent matter. I support the Bill, but one of the pieces of evidence presented to Congress on Monday was that more than 200 couples are interested in trying experiments of the sort covered by the Bill as a way to have a baby. Those people are prepared to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds to take part in such experiments. It is therefore urgent that the Bill should become law. I believe that it should take only days or a week to get it on to the statute book, but there is no excuse for doing so in one afternoon, as is proposed. It is crucial that we have gaps between the various stages.

Ian Taylor: We need time to debate this issue in the broader context of how we treat cell nuclear replacements and how we isolate the aspects of cell creation that we wish to ban—human reproduction. We do not want to make the mistake of the US Congress, which is to ban everything. In my judgment, it is humane to pursue therapeutic cloning through cell nuclear replacement.

Oliver Heald: My hon. Friend illustrates one of the most important points about measures such as this: there are very different, serious, deeply held views on the exact way forward. I hope that when the Lords Stem Cell Research Committee finishes its report on this issue we shall have an opportunity to look in detail at all the law in this area and at all the various complicated, difficult issues that arise. Even since January, when we debated therapeutic cloning, more evidence has emerged about what can be done with adult stem cells. Clearly, that should inform our debate and we should look at the issues. I hope that the Government will treat this as the emergency plugging of a loophole and that we shall return to the subject and have a proper debate in due course, if it does not prove possible to do so now.

Alan Beith: If the Government succeed in pressing ahead today, they must return with a further legislative opportunity. Will the hon. Gentleman reconsider his concept of urgency? It strains credulity to suggest that someone could arrive in this country, find a clinic prepared to lose its licence by co-operating, find participants and embark on this procedure in the few weeks that it would take us to consider this Bill properly. Does he agree that the Government are straining the concept of emergency beyond any reasonable limit by saying that we have to legislate in a period shorter than would be needed to give the Bill reasonable consideration?

Oliver Heald: I agree that a period of three and a half hours with no gaps between the stages is ludicrous. The Bill is tightly drawn and probably goes beyond what is sensible in tightening the cordon.
	Lord Brennan, who supports the Bill and therapeutic cloning, wanted to raise some basic legal issues about definition and so on, but even narrow definitional issues proved beyond the draftsmanship of someone who has been Chairman of the Bar Council and is widely respected across both Houses.
	There is an issue about whether the drafting of the Bill is helping democracy. I would strongly support a straightforward Bill and a relatively quick timetable, but it is a mistake to draw the Bill so tightly that we cannot even consider, for example, issues such as those raised in the other place by Lady Blatch and others. The timetable, too, is wrong.
	That is sad, as there is no reason for us to be in this position. The Government knew of the legal doubts as long ago as last January. I cannot help thinking that they offered a Bill in their manifesto because they thought that it was necessary to ban this form of cloning in primary legislation. Otherwise, why have a Bill? As recently as the general election the Government were promising to introduce a Bill of this sort, but they did not. In January, 11 months ago, they were told that there was a legal risk. At the general election, just a few months ago, they admitted that there was a need to change the law. The Government took a risk. They hoped that the matter would not end up in court and that they would get away with it. Now, because of their mistake, democracy is being asked to pay the price in over-hasty legislation.
	We oppose the motion because, first, it fails to recognise the importance of the issue; secondly, it fails to recognise the desire of many hon. Members to consider amendments to the Bill, not only in Committee but on Report; and, thirdly, it fails to recognise the advantages of allowing people outside this place, who have a legitimate interest in the issue, to lobby us and to help us to inform our debates.
	It is right to legislate, but it is wrong to do so without proper scrutiny.

Paul Tyler: I want to develop the point made by the hon. Member for North–East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald).
	We must all face the fact that Parliament has a bad reputation for legislating in haste and repenting at leisure. In successive Governments, Home Office Ministers especially have bamboozled the House into thinking that speed is more important than security of outcome. Each time we are told that it is an emergency.
	We all remember the Dangerous Dogs Bill, which proved misdirected. We should also remember the dangerous yobs Bill, dealing with football hooligans, which similarly was found to be largely inoperable. In the past few weeks, we have been considering the dangerous terrorists Bill, and even the Minister must accept that both Houses share wide misgivings about the speed with which that ragbag is being pushed through.
	It appears that we are now considering a dangerous professors Bill. The measure is undoubtedly media-driven, as my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) pointed out. There is no great public outcry for us to pass legislation this week. The pressure for emergency provisions comes entirely from the tabloid press. The House does itself and the country a disservice by allowing ourselves to be panicked into taking such measures.
	We have four concerns about the Bill. The first is legal. As the Minister said, it was only on 15 November that Mr. Justice Crane gave his judgment in the High Court. She pointed out that an appeal is being mounted against only one aspect of that judgment and that we are dealing with a different aspect, but the interrelationship of those aspects involves complicated law. As she said, if the appeal to be lodged this afternoon is unsuccessful, she will be back here again; she will want more parliamentary time and no doubt we will be told that there is another emergency measure that must have all its stages rushed through in an afternoon.
	That is the legal issue. We are already treading in dangerous territory—perhaps sub judice—because of the interrelationship of those aspects. The judge—for once—kept to the letter of the law. What a surprise. Good heavens, is not that what judges often do? Were the Government surprised that for once a judge actually read what had been passed in Parliament and decided that he should go by the letter of the law? What an amazing revelation. Were the Government not prepared for that? If they did not expect that, will they be prepared for the likely outcome of the appeal? Perhaps another judge will also say, "Good heavens, Parliament seems to have introduced some legislation, so I had better take notice of it."
	In a few weeks, we shall have to come back to this issue and another Minister—or even the hon. Lady, if she has not been sacked in the meantime—will be saying, "Oh dear, oh dear, there is another emergency."

Ian Gibson: Will the hon. Gentleman please tell us which group brought the case in the High Court?

Paul Tyler: I think that it was the ProLife Alliance, but I hasten to assure the hon. Gentleman that I hold no particular brief for that group. That is not the point. The point is that a judge in the High Court of this land decided to rely on the words that we in Parliament had agreed. Amazing.
	Our second concern relates to the medical and scientific—

Evan Harris: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Paul Tyler: I shall give way to my hon. Friend in a moment. I am about to refer to him in flattering terms. When we reach the appropriate point, he will deal in detail with the medical and scientific aspects, but I am sure that all hon. Members will acknowledge—as a layman, I certainly do—that they are complicated and difficult for ordinary people to understand. That is an important point.
	Three pages of closely argued explanation—or excuse—from the Minister still do not explain why the Department made its mistake last January and gave us those assurances. There is no apology and no explanation. In a few minutes, I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to deal with the Bill's substantial omissions and loopholes. The Minister has, in effect, acknowledged that it is full of holes and thus defective. The issue has been debated at greater length in the European Parliament and the United States Congress, and they have still not got it right.

Michael Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman will know that the US Congress has the same procedures as us. After all, the US Congress is a mirror image of Parliament.

Patrick Cormack: It is not.

Michael Fabricant: I believe that it is. However, the issue is whether the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) is aware that the US Congress resisted the temptation to which the House may unfortunately succumb. It has separated the various stages—Second Reading, consideration in Committee and on Report and Third Reading—but we may make the mistake of taking those stages in just two and a half hours today.

Paul Tyler: I shall not follow the hon. Gentleman in his comparison of the United Kingdom and the US constitutions because, as other hon. Members will agree, we have a very different constitution. But he is right that we will run into the most appalling problems in taking together all the stages of a Bill, however straightforward it may appear at first sight.

Evan Harris: When my hon. Friend asked the Government to explain why they lost the judicial review, he was challenged for having in some way sided with the ProLife Alliance. Many people advised the Government that their definition would not hold up—for example, Margot Brazier. In his book, Professor Derek Morgan questioned whether it would hold—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Those matters are not directly related to the allocation of time motion.

Paul Tyler: I therefore express my qualified admiration and gratitude to my hon. Friend, but I have no doubt that he will return to that point if he catches your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	Thirdly, having dealt with the legal and scientific concerns about the way in which the issue is being handled, I turn to the ethical. Whatever our view, we must acknowledge that people have sincere moral and ethical misgivings about these issues; they need the most careful thought. These are highly contentious issues, so all hon. Members, whichever side we take, should give them the attention that they deserve. Indeed, some of us may not have reached a conclusion because these are genuine issues of conscience, and certainly not issues of party policy. We may not have had the opportunity of listening to our leaders and the great and good, who may be able to increase our wisdom on the issues, so, again, we have a particular responsibility to give them the attention that they deserve.
	As my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick–upon–Tweed (Mr. Beith) said, by taking all stages in an afternoon, we deny not only ourselves but people outside the House the opportunity for careful thought. That is a critical issue for the House. It may not be such an issue for the other House, but as a representative, democratically elected House, we have a responsibility to listen to all sides of the argument and to those outside, especially our constituents.
	Earlier this afternoon, the Leader of the House told us that the House will rise for the Christmas recess on the Wednesday before Christmas. Most of us had already noted in our diaries that we would be here on the Thursday. I suggest to the Government, even at this stage, that a little shunting backwards would provide us with an opportunity to return to this issue at an appropriate point in the consideration of the Bill. That would enable us to listen not only to what other hon. Members say, but to people outside the House. I cannot commit every Liberal Democrat Member to this, but I suspect that as all my hon. Friends have marked Thursday in their diaries as a sitting day, they would feel the House fully justified in taking one more day to give this important Bill further consideration.
	I do not demur from what the hon. Member for North–East Hertfordshire and the Minister said about the Bill's importance. It is incredibly important that we consider it properly precisely because it is so important.
	I must put on record once again the fact that there has been no consultation with my party or, so far as I am aware, with those on the Conservative Front Bench on the handling of the Bill. Frankly, that is a disgrace, and that lack of consultation is not good for business in the House.
	On many occasions, the Leader of the House has said that good government requires good parliamentary scrutiny. We are letting ourselves and him down and, most important, we are letting the electorate down by giving the Bill this perfunctory performance of scrutiny this afternoon. Knee-jerk reactions have a nasty habit of hitting the wrong place. If the Bill is as misdirected as I fear that it might be, it could be very painful indeed.

Patrick Cormack: As you reminded us, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we are debating not the merits of the Bill, but the merits of considering it in this manner. Frankly, there is no merit whatever in taking it in the manner in which the Government propose.
	There is no situation in the world that is not made worse by panic. This is panic legislation that has been introduced by a Government who, as long ago as August 2000, realised that it would be necessary to produce a Bill. They have waited until the very last minute and sprung the Bill on Parliament in a way that is contemptuous of Parliament, insulting to our constituents and that treats an issue of enormous moral significance as if it were a mere bagatelle. However one looks at it, it is a monumental gaffe by the Government for which there is absolutely no excuse.
	Yesterday, we debated a measure that did not keep the House occupied until 10 o'clock. There is no reason on God's earth why we should not have begun the consideration of this Bill yesterday. We would then at least have had 24 hours between one stage and another. That would have been far better than what confronts us now, but there is no excuse for even that sort of precipitate rush.
	There cannot be a Member in the House who does not have constituents who are profoundly concerned by the moral implications of the subject. I shall say nothing about that, because I would rightly be called to order if I did. However, in this context, I am a follower of the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster who wrote an article last week that outlined some of the complexities of the subject. I well recognise that others take a different view. I honour them for it, and they have every right to take it, but whatever view we take, what opportunity did any of us have to discuss the matter in our constituencies between the announcement that the Bill would be introduced and today's debate? We had no proper opportunity to arrange meetings.
	We should have had Second Reading today—that would have been perfectly in order and entirely reasonable—and then had the weekend to talk to our constituents. It is not just the Churches that are interested in the subject. Doctors and many others would have wanted the opportunity—I would have liked to have given them it—to talk about the Bill.

Andy King: I am trying to find the right form of words, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman is unintentionally misleading us by suggesting that the Bill has been thought up in the past few days. As Baroness Warnock said in the other place, the Bill should be welcomed because the Government and Parliament are fulfilling a commitment on this very important subject. I have received many letters about it, and I believe that my constituents are happy that we are beginning the process, but think that perhaps we should go further.

Patrick Cormack: I am almost sorry that I gave way. The hon. Gentleman completely misses the point. Let me say it again. Yes, the Government recognised the need for the Bill as long ago as August 2000, but why in the name of goodness do they have to give us one afternoon to get it through all its stages? It is absurd and an insult, as much to him and his constituents as to me and mine, and to all hon. Members who are present and theirs.

Michael Fabricant: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Patrick Cormack: I would rather not on this occasion, if my hon. Friend will forgive me, because I do not want to detain the House. I believe that it is important to debate the merits of the Bill.
	Even at this late stage, I appeal to the Minister to get herself a parliamentary reputation. She would be honoured in all parts of the House if she sent her Parliamentary Private Secretary to ring the Leader of the House. He has announced a programme of business for the next two weeks that would easily allow more debate on the Bill. The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) mentioned the Wednesday of the week before Christmas. The programme could allow another day—or even another half-day—to provide a gap between Second Reading and further consideration.
	I welcome the fact that the Government want the Committee stage to take place on the Floor of the House. The subject is so important that that is right and proper. However, there is no reason to rush through it this afternoon. Parliament is being treated with a cavalier disdain that would never have occurred to Charles I. That is monstrous, an exercise in arrogant parliamentary tyranny that even the Government have not previously undertaken. We hear nonsense, and lip service is paid to the House, scrutiny and accountability. [Interruption.] Labour Members may laugh but we are here to scrutinise and be accountable. We are told to rush through a measure on an issue of monumental moral significance in a few hours. That is an act of unspeakable arrogance and I hope that hon. Members will show their opinion of it in the Lobby.

Ian Paisley: I oppose the way in which the Bill has been introduced. I support its aim to outlaw cloning, but many matters flow from it that some of us would like to discuss on the Floor of the House. I say to those who have spoken about the United States of America that such a measure is not law there. It has not been to the Senate and will not be considered there until late spring. Such legislation has therefore not been rushed through in the United States.
	I ask the Minister to help me as a Member of the European Parliament. I welcome the fact that, under the subsidiarity principle, national Governments decide whether research into cloning should be allowed. I am glad that the power is in the hands of the national Government. However, I do not understand why the European Union is getting involved in the matter. This week, we had a report from the Brussels Parliament, from which I have just travelled. What is the difference between the Government's policy and that outlined by Europe? It is important to understand the Government's plans and the difference between them and the European Union plans.
	Many matters that need to be examined cannot be considered today. The spill-over from the measure raises many issues that worry people, whatever their religious, moral, theological or political views. All hon. Members who receive letters from constituents know that the subject is topical. Our constituents are talking about it, largely because they have heard an announcement that someone might enter the country and use the territory of the United Kingdom for something that the vast majority of citizens believe should not be done.
	I deeply regret that the Government have not given us more time. We have no chance of dealing with amendments properly. We can do that only if we have time to consider them. The Bill will not have a Report stage and no amendments will be accepted. It will have to go through as it is. Like the law of the Medes and Persians, it cannot be altered. That is not good government, and it does not tend to produce good legislation.
	The Bill will affect many people. The Government must tell us the difference, if one exists, between their policy and that of the European Union.

Ann Widdecombe: The Bill is a disgrace. It has been produced under the guise of one panic to cover up another. The Government are seriously asking the House to believe that they are in a terrible panic because an Italian is on his way and might do something nasty when he gets here. Indeed, we are being asked to believe that he might do it so quickly that even if we took a couple more days to debate the measure, he could do it in that time. That is not rational, and the Government do not mean it.
	The Government are not genuinely afraid that, as we race against the clock to debate the Bill in the next five hours, a scientist will carry out a specific procedure unless we have decided by 7 pm that he cannot. That is ludicrous. Why are they saying that? They do not expect us to believe it; the Minister is too intelligent for that. They have produced a Bill and demanded that we take it through all its stages in five hours because they are terrified that we might try to amend it. They are especially afraid that some of us who have well known moral objections might try to amend it for purposes other than cloning. That is the source of the panic.
	The problem with that approach is that the Government have produced a Bill that will not even provide the protection that they believe it will give. That is why we need more time to discuss it. I shall list some issues, which I would not dream of debating because you would quickly call me to order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that need discussion.
	The Bill does not prevent the creation of human clones for export, only for implantation. The Italian could come here, create the clone and take it away. There is nothing to stop implantation in animals, and early in vitro fertilisation experiments were conducted in that way. Nothing prevents the use of artificial wombs, which are being used in animals in Japan, or the storing of cloned embryos.
	We need time to debate policing the measure. The Bill provides for an offence not of creating a cloned embryo, but of implanting one. Once the embryo has been implanted, how on earth will we know whether it has been cloned? How will we know whether a pregnancy is natural, or caused through IVF or cloning? I am fascinated. I long for the Minister to tell us. We would love to know how the Bill will be policed.
	When The Independent carried out a survey of all leading IVF consultants, the majority said that they believed that live-birth cloning was inevitable once the creation of cloned embryos was allowed. I find that frightening; the Minister is laughing, so I presume that she does not. The Bill does not prevent the creation of cloned embryos. It will not address, and we will not have time to discuss—I saw you getting restless, Mr. Deputy Speaker—the issues of proper control.
	Last year, a clinic that only a week earlier had passed an inspection by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority implanted 80-odd women with the wrong embryos. How will we police the accidental implantation of cloned embryos? We have no clue how the Government will stop that happening, and they do not have the time to tell us.
	The Bill does not even define "embryo". We were told—arrogantly—in 1990 by a Government whom I supported that it was not necessary to define that term, and that is why we are in this mess. The Bill is supposed to clear up the mess, but it is perpetuated because a definition is not available.

Lynne Jones: It is not correct that there is no definition; it is just that it does not cover embryos that are created other than by fertilisation. Definitions are available.

Ann Widdecombe: I was going to take care of that later. The point is well made. There is no definition of when an embryo, as opposed to a pre-embryo, begins and a foetus, as opposed to embryo, starts. We made it clear in 1990 that unless we sorted that out, we would have problems. As a result of not having proper definitions, the ProLife Alliance—I am proud that it was that organisation—obtained a victory in the High Court.
	Concern has even been expressed by Professor Winston of all people, who is no friend to my side of the argument.

David Amess: Hear, hear.

Ann Widdecombe: It is undeniable.
	Professor Winston says that fertilisation is impossible to define and that parthenogenesis, which is the cloning procedure undertaken by Mike West of Advanced Cell Technology, could be classified as fertilisation. Professor Robert Edwards fears that the Bill, because of the way in which it is drafted, could prevent some things that are already legally allowed. Government lawyers agree that the current 14-day limit and the consent provisions will not apply to cloned embryos.
	That is a partial list. I could have cited at least another 30 things that it does not do. If we had only five minutes on each of those, we would run out of time. We would even run out of time if we had only five minutes on all the things that I managed to list. It is a disgrace that the Bill is being rushed through. Nothing is going to happen in the next few days to prevent us from debating the subject for longer and more properly, and the Minister cannot point to anything that will happen in the next few days.
	The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) rightly said that there is a whole spare day in the system. My hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) explained that the House packed up early yesterday when there were several hours that we could have used. There have been, and there are, many opportunities to put the measure through quickly.
	The situation is ludicrous. It is arrogant of the Government to bring something as profound and serious as this Bill to the House and say, "You clear it up: all stages", without giving us time to reflect on its final shape, to table amendments on Report and to reflect on those before Third Reading. It is arrogant to push it through in this way. I am not surprised, but I am disappointed and saddened. I do not think that it is an exaggeration to say that the Government's action is tyrannical. A few days would not have made any difference. Even at this late stage, will the Government reconsider their position?

Paul Marsden: I was not going to speak on the motion, but having listened to the magnificent defence of Parliament by the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), I want to echo his words, however humbly. This is yet another example of us rushing through a Bill in which there is great interest in the country. Many of my constituents who have contacted me over the past week want to see me at my usual surgery on Friday, where they will be able to hear me justify my standpoint, which is to support the Opposition's amendment. Unfortunately, they cannot influence my decision because it will be after the event.
	There is no excuse for rushing the Bill through. I worry again about the future of parliamentary democracy when Ministers choose to take such a tack. I wish that they would reflect a little more on the need to give proper time for the due process of parliamentary procedures.

Michael Fabricant: The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden) makes a powerful point. Several issues have been raised by hon. Members from both the main Opposition parties. One issue that has not been taken up is the need to consult the experts, because this is such a technical Bill, as well as our constituents.
	I am sure that I am not alone in receiving representations. I received a good letter from the Minister and briefings from the Association of Medical Research Charities, the public policy department of Christian Action Research and Education, the Parkinson's Disease Society and the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children. Previously, I received briefing material from the diabetics organisations.
	We are dealing with highly technical issues. The whole point of having different stages to consider a Bill is to enable people to give us advice. I sometimes think that the advice of people from outside who lobby us is not useful, and I wonder about the motivation for lobbying. However, for a technical Bill of this nature, I think that we would all welcome lobbying from those who know about the subject.
	For example, there is an argument whether we need to perform such cloning in the first place. I happen to believe that we do, but many other hon. Members on both sides of the House would argue that adult stem cells can do the job. I doubt that, but I do not know. None of us does, but the experts could advise us. Surely it makes sense to hear the arguments on Second Reading today and then receive representations from people who know about the subject, so that we can take the Bill to the next stage.
	I calculated earlier that possibly three and three quarter minutes might be available for each amendment, but I made a mistake. The Chairman of Ways and Means has chosen the amendments that he believes are in order and merit debate. Is there not the possibility that hon. Members might want to divide on them? A Division could take 15 or 20 minutes, so there would be virtually no time available for Report or Third Reading. That makes a mockery of the parliamentary process.
	I am pleased that this issue will be subject to a one-line Whip, at least in the official Opposition. I assume that there is no whipping of Labour Members. As with all issues that require a one-line Whip or that are debated on the Floor in a Committee of the whole House, they require consideration and technical advice.

Paul Marsden: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be interested to know that Labour Members were paged just a few minutes ago to remind us that we are running a three-line Whip.

Michael Fabricant: I am genuinely surprised by that intervention. Generally, on conscience issues, there is an understanding on both sides of the House that there will be a one-line Whip—[Interruption.] I am receiving confirmation from the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats, that it is a one-line Whip with his party, too. That is a free vote. However, there is not a free vote for Labour Members. That is disgraceful and shocking. I say that as someone who wishes the general principle of the Bill to receive a fair wind. I want the Bill to be enacted, albeit that it may need amendment.

Michael Jabez Foster: Perhaps the pager of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) has gone wrong. It is the obligation of Members to turn up to vote on important issues. However, their right to vote and which way they vote is a free vote. That is precisely what the Government are asking Back-Bench Members to do.

Michael Fabricant: I do not want to take this argument too far, or I would be out of order. We are all aware of the convention on whipping. A free vote is a one-line Whip. A vote that is not a free vote is a three-line Whip. The hon. Gentleman did not deny that the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham was put under a three-line Whip.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is drifting away from the question of allocation of time. Perhaps he will return to that topic.

Michael Fabricant: I am grateful for your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	As small as it is, the Bill is an important measure. Only slightly fewer than 1 million people suffer from diabetes, for example. On Sunday, I was going round Bletchley Park looking at station X with a friend. He had twice to inject himself with insulin. If he does not get the balance right, he could go blind or lose a limb. Research that could stem from the Bill could possibly find a cure for diabetes and for Parkinson's disease. The Bill will—

Anne Begg: The hon. Gentleman might be in danger of misleading the House. The Bill will not prevent therapeutic cloning; it is designed to prevent reproductive cloning. He must keep the two issues separate.

Michael Fabricant: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman firmly that we are not now discussing the contents of the Bill.

Michael Fabricant: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I want to respond to the hon. Lady's intervention. She is right, and I am sorry if I gave the wrong impression. I support the Bill because I support therapeutic cloning.
	I have illustrated that the Bill is complex. It is complex in law, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) said. It is also complex in terms of biomedicine. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will argue the points for and against the Bill on Second Reading. We shall then need time to contemplate the issues that have been raised and presented. We shall then have to take advice from experts.
	There is conflicting advice. I talked earlier about whether we need therapeutic cloning. I happen to believe that we do, but we must take advice from experts.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is listening to the advice that I am giving him. We are not now discussing the contents of the Bill.

Michael Fabricant: I realise that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are talking about the programme motion. I am making the important point that we need extra time because of the nature of the Bill. It is a technical measure and we need gaps between the stages of consideration.
	The Government are being arrogant in the extreme by trying to compress all stages of consideration into only three hours. The time for consideration may be shorter because there may be four or five Divisions before we reach 7 o'clock, when the debate must stop.
	The hon. Member for North Cornwall said that there is an extra day available. My hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) said that the issue has been known about since August 2000, more than a year ago. There have been adequate occasions since then to find time fully to debate the important Bill that is before us. The Bill is a panicked measure from a panicked Government. I fear that by not allowing proper time to debate it fully, we shall end up yet again with legislation that is imperfect.

Lynne Jones: As a supporter of therapeutic cloning, I understand the necessity to bring forward the Bill. As a supporter of the Bill, I am rather surprised to find myself supporting much of what the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) said. Similarly, I am surprised to find myself supporting the comments made in a letter from the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, which wrote to all Members. Part of the letter states:
	"There is no imminent threat of cloned embryos being created nor of resultant cloned babies being born."
	Surely, the society is right.
	The Bill is fairly urgent, but it is not an emergency measure. It is more urgent that we consider the aspects of cloning that are not covered by the Bill. Much more imminent is the likelihood that people will seek to create cloned embryos, or embryos produced by other means that are not covered by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, for experimental purposes prior to implantation. As the right hon. Lady says, what happens after that is difficult to regulate.
	The Government thought that they were clear that embryos created by cloning techniques were covered by the 1990 Act. They took counsel's advice. They were warned that we might be in the position in which we now find ourselves in 1997 by the Select Committee on Science and Technology. It is a great pity that they did not take note of what the Committee said. I shall read out the recommendation that we made that long ago. The Committee—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady is starting to make a Second Reading speech. We are discussing the allocation of time. When we have finished doing that, we shall move on to Second Reading, when it will be appropriate to make Second Reading speeches.

Lynne Jones: What I am saying, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is relevant in the sense of what is omitted from the Bill and the time that is available to us to consider important issues. I will not read the exact wording of the Committee's recommendation, but we were clear that the law was ambiguous and sufficiently lax not to catch applications of the Roslin technique. We said:
	"While Counsel's opinion will clarify the position, it will not be a binding interpretation of the law."
	Somewhat momentously, we also said:
	"It is not satisfactory for issues as momentous as this to be left until they are decided through test cases."
	However, that is what has happened. We predicted in March 1997 that it would happen.
	Again, in February 1998, the Committee expressed its concerns to the Government. Again, those concerns were ignored. The Government are now rushing to ban reproductive cloning while allowing the creation of embryos from methods other than fertilisation, including cell nuclear replacement, which is completely unregulated. We know that reproductive cloning is impossible without those earlier stages, which are ignored in the Bill. It would have been much better if the Government had not rushed the legislation—there is time as reproductive cloning is not imminent. Women are not rushing to donate their eggs for that kind of research. There is no emergency, but the matter is urgent.
	The Government should have acted on earlier advice. They are now saying that they will wait for the report from the Lords Stem Cell Research Committee and the outcome of their appeal. That is reasonable because that time scale is reasonably short. If the appeal goes against the Government, they will have to amend the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 to change the definition of an embryo to cover all methods used to create one. If they did so, there would be support on both sides of the House. There would be a lot of debate on the proposals, and no doubt people who are opposed to the use of embryos for research would want to express their views and amend the Act. It is proper for them to have the opportunity to do that, even though I disagree with them.
	I am concerned that we are rushing the Bill through today, and that it does not address the crucial issues. As the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald said, the prohibitions in the 1990 Act that apply to embryos created through fertilisation do not apply to embryos created through cell nuclear replacement. She listed all the things that are unregulated as a result of the High Court judgment. The Government should address those issues. Everyone supports the Bill, and it would go through relatively quickly with support on both sides of the House. However, it would have been preferable to have at least one more day to debate it. I do not consider the situation to be an emergency. I would much prefer to have had more time to debate the anti-terrorism legislation, which does deal with an emergency.

Michael Fabricant: Although I support the Bill, the hon. Lady is wrong to say that Members all do. I know that a number of them object to it. Is that why Labour Members are on a three-line Whip?

Lynne Jones: I do not honestly know why we are on a three-line Whip, as we all had a free vote on the proposals to amend the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act. Perhaps there was a mistake by the Whips Office, which may not have realised what type of issues the Bill addresses. I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends would not seek to lean too heavily on Members when we are discussing an issue of such importance.
	I do not think that anybody in the House is opposed to legislation to ban reproductive cloning. That is the simple purpose of the Bill, which I support, but I am concerned that introducing it without addressing therapeutic cloning puts the cart before the horse.

Evan Harris: My hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) has already given reasons why the guillotine motion is unpleasant and I endorse many comments by Members on both sides of the House on the matter.
	Many of us who are relatively new to the House thought that the days of the crunch guillotine were over and that in the new modernised House, with the Modernisation Committee and programming motions, whatever their merits and demerits, we would not have to deal with such things. Having a guillotine motion imposed on the House without any consultation, even through the usual channels—I am not suggesting that that is necessarily the most inclusive way of doing things on free vote issues—makes the situation even worse

Michael Fabricant: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way early in his speech. Like me, does he make a contrast between legislation rushed through the House because of a national emergency and the introduction of a Bill that has been known about since August 2000?

Evan Harris: I was coming to that. Whatever one's view of the substantive issue in the Bill, one day is not enough to scrutinise it, as others have said. I am not going to reiterate the point about needing a pause between Second Reading and Committee stage, then Report and Third Reading and, indeed, between consideration in the Commons and Lords. One can take advice during that time and consult constituents and experts.
	The Government are getting into the habit of calling something emergency legislation, then rushing it through as a way of getting themselves out of difficulties unrelated to the emergency. Indeed, they are also getting legislation through using emergency measures that are not really urgent.

Paul Goodman: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) said, the Government do not need the legislation for the reason that they gave because they can block the entry of that professor under the Immigration Act 1971? Significantly, the Minister failed to answer that point.

Evan Harris: The right hon. Member for Maidstone—

Ann Widdecombe: And the Weald.

Evan Harris: I will call her the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) if she will call us the Liberal Democrats, not the Liberals. She gave several reasons why the Bill is not required to stop an Italian self-publicist; all that it seems to do is give credence to his wish for publicity.
	I am keen to concentrate on two other areas, including the Government's general reluctance to allow full debate and amendment to primary legislation on the subject. I cannot understand why they are devoted to seeking to avoid that, unless they feel that there is a problem with allowing free votes and not having the control over matters coming before the House to which they are used. That is regrettable because many of the issues are regarded as free vote issues. Not whipping is pointless if we never get an opportunity to debate such matters and have primary legislation on them. The Government do not like to be in a position where they are not in control; this is not the only area in which we have seen that tendency.
	The Government give the impression of wanting to rush the legislation through as quickly as possible because they do not like debate on such issues per se. Some members of the Government find it difficult to discuss anything to do with reproduction, or let the House debate and come to quick decisions on matters to do with sexual health, reproduction or anything concerning the abortion issue. I suspect that that was also the case with previous Governments. We have a duty in the House not to be embarrassed. We should be prepared to risk wrath or adverse coverage even in the tabloid press to make sure that such things are adequately discussed.

Gerald Howarth: I have never known the hon. Gentleman to suffer from a surfeit of embarrassment.

Evan Harris: Perhaps I have just brought my clinical training to the House. One cannot refuse to discuss those things, because science and future developments are important to many people.
	The Government's decision to push the Bill through on a guillotine is based on public reaction. I was surprised that the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), for whom I have a great deal of respect in matters of science, should appear in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall to suggest that the Government must respond to something because there is panicky media coverage of it. That is most unlike him. Both in conversation with me and on the public record, he has always argued for a rational, scientific and considered approach, even in the face of adverse reaction—except, perhaps, in the case telephone communication masts. I remember him contributing to scaremongering on that subject.
	I urge the Government not to listen to the hon. Gentleman and to take a deep breath when a Daily Mail headline appears. The newspapers are entitled to do their job—they do it well—and cover issues in the news. I do not criticise them for that, but we have a different job, which is to legislate deliberatively.

Ann Widdecombe: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that not even the Daily Mail, the Mirror or any other tabloid has suggested that by seven o'clock tonight we might have a cloned human?

Evan Harris: Quite so. In that respect, I have no argument with the activities of the media. Although there was supposed to be a huge fuss, compared with other issues, the reaction to the judgment and to the news from America has been reasonably restrained and educational. I make no criticism of the media in that respect. I criticise the Government for appearing to cite the media coverage as a defence for their timetable.

Ian Taylor: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman on one point. The media hype up science stories and take potential science as though it is today's event. The developments at Advanced Cell Technology in the United States were fleeting, marginal and unsustainable in terms of stem cells.

Evan Harris: We are not necessarily in disagreement. My main concern is that whatever the accuracy of media reports, we should not legislate on that basis, especially without the benefit of expert opinion. The media will do what the media do, and they always will. We have a free press, and I welcome that.

Simon Thomas: When we debated these matters earlier this year, the hon. Gentleman's views were influential in the House. I listened closely to what he said. He will be aware that next week we have two days of Adjournment debates on fisheries and European affairs, neither of which is urgent. Does he agree that if the following stages of the Bill were taken on those two days next week, that would give lay Members such as me sufficient time to get the necessary information and refer to scientific expertise on the subject?

Evan Harris: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. If my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick–upon–Tweed (Mr. Beith) catches the Deputy Speaker's eye, perhaps he will suggest that even at this late stage there are means of achieving better scrutiny.
	The Government have defended their timetable on the basis of the sudden judgment given three weeks ago in the High Court. The Minister made that point in her introduction, and the hon. Member for North–East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) dealt with that. I want to test whether it was a surprise judgment. If it was not, the rationale for the timetable is groundless.
	The Minister knew that there was considerable academic and legal opinion that the advice that she had received, which I accept she got from counsel, was not to be relied on to win the High Court judgment. Several people had questioned whether it was reasonable for the Government to assume that they would win the case. I fear that it may not be reasonable for the Government to assume, as they do, that they will win the appeal.
	According to a book by Robert Lee and Derek Morgan entitled "Human Fertilisation & Embryology", the eminent ethicist Margot Brazier made it clear in 1999 that she had serious doubts. She stated:
	"I would contend that nuclear substitution into an egg cell is unregulated in the United Kingdom today."
	That view was also expressed by Derek Beyleveld and Shaun Pattinson, who stated that in their view—which, I believe, dates from about the same time—a judge may well decide that the matter did not fall within the ambit of the 1990 Act.
	It is even more surprising that the Government should be surprised by that—so surprised that they introduced the timetable—when they were relying on a judge giving a purposive interpretation, rather than a literal one. They believed that there was a ban on activity with cloned embryos outside what they thought was covered by the Bill, such that a criminal prosecution could be launched on the basis of the 1990 Act.
	The Minister must know that it is extremely unlikely that a judge would deliver a purposive interpretation of statute in order to convict someone who used a literary interpretation as a defence. If people cannot rely on a reasonable, rational, literal interpretation of the law as a defence, the British judicial system is not what it should be.

Lynne Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that not only the academics whom he quoted, but a Committee of the House made the recommendation? We took evidence at the time from the chair of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority and Dr. Ian Wilmut, who was responsible for the creation of Dolly the sheep. In his view, the Act did not cover his technique.

Evan Harris: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I meant to say that in addition to the points that I made, there were those that she had made, which I would not repeat.
	The Government Chief Whip has left the Chamber, which is unfortunate, but she has been replaced by her admirable deputy. It is worth while asking about the whipping arrangements. It would be useful for the House to know whether there is a running three-line Whip on the guillotine motion. If there is not, it would be useful for a pager message to be sent to hon. Members to clarify the position. If the Government Whips Office is not in communication with the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden), it is difficult to know whether there will be a free vote for Labour Members on the guillotine motion.
	The Minister cannot have been surprised by the High Court judgment, although she may have been disappointed, as I suspect we all were, as life would have been easier for everyone if the judgment had been otherwise. I certainly want a ban on human reproductive cloning. The Government could have predicted that the problem would occur, and we do not know when the appeal process will end. If the Minister loses in the Court of Appeal, will she take the case to the House of Lords? Will she go to the European Court? Will the other side do those things?
	It is time for the Government to introduce proper legislation in good time, subject to adequate scrutiny, dealing with this important matter. We have heard about the other protections for the cloned embryo that would apply had the judgment not occurred. The Government should allow therapeutic cloning to go ahead and implement the other recommendations in the Donaldson report relating to consent and what happens to embryonic stem cell lines.
	There is no good argument for the Bill being rushed through Parliament. I hope that at this late stage the Government will relent, that they will not yield to or feed media panic, and that they will allow the House to scrutinise these important matters adequately.

Edward Leigh: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris). Although we have often locked horns on the issue, we are at one about the way in which the House should deal with these matters—with great seriousness and attention to detail.
	For a programme motion to be agreed, the Government—who can, of course, simply impose their majority on the House—must win the argument. To win the argument, they must prove two things: first, that the Bill is sufficiently clear, simple and unambiguous, and that it addresses a sufficiently narrow issue for us to debate Second Reading, Committee and Report all in one day. Secondly, the Government must prove to the House that these matters are so urgent that, in addition to being simple, unambiguous and easily disposed of in one day, they must be disposed of by this evening.

Michael Fabricant: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Edward Leigh: No, I will not give way. I intend to speak briefly.
	The Government must convince the House of those two points. Anybody who studies the Bill, the reasoned amendment tabled by me and my right hon. and hon. Friends, and the amendments on the Order Paper which are due for selection, will come to the conclusion that the matter is highly complex. It raises enormous ethical, moral and medical concerns. The amendments, especially those that relate to the definition of embryos and of fertilisation must be debated in full. They cannot be debated in one day.
	It is possible that once hon. Members have exercised their right to address the wider ethical and medical issues on Second Reading, there will be no time for the Committee or Report stage. That is not the way to deal with matters that are of deep moral concern to the nation. That is my first point. Unless the Minister produces arguments to convince us that we are wrong, I do not believe that the Government have proved their point.
	The second point that the Government must prove is that these matters must be resolved either today or very quickly, before the end of the week. Again, they have made no attempt to convince the House that that is the case. The fact of the matter is that no scientist is anywhere near creating a cloned human being and that there is no chance whatever of this Italian gentleman or anybody else creating such a process within the next week. We could easily have devoted a day next week to Second Reading and a day to the Committee stage. We could then have had a proper debate in which all the issues could have been discussed. Do the Government really contend that a scientist could find collaborators, eggs, embryos and women who are willing to be implanted before comprehensive legislation is introduced? Is that their contention in this debate? Surely, the medical risks that are inherent in live birth cloning mean that any doctor who carried out such a procedure would not be acting ethically. Such a doctor could be subject to censure by the General Medical Council and even find himself facing criminal charges for assault.
	The truth is that that will not happen. Everybody in the House knows that it will not happen, so why on earth are the Government again seeking to treat our procedures with such contempt? What is the point? Why can we not have a proper debate on Second Reading and return next week for a proper Committee and Report stage?

John Pugh: I shall be focused and speak specifically about why I think, as a pro-life supporter, that the idea of imposing a guillotine on the Bill is nonsensical. It deals with a matter of major moral importance that should be the subject of significant consideration in the House. A prolonged debate is the only mechanism for achieving that.
	The Government's procedure seems fundamentally flawed, as they are using statutory instruments and quick Bills to deal with one of the major social issues that is facing the world. As hon. Members have pointed out, certain issues will not be cleared up anyway. They include cross-species implantation and the marketing of embryos, as well as technical issues concerning human rights. All those matters will still be on the table to be dealt with no matter what happens today. It is, therefore, a pity that the Bill is not amendable, as the need will remain for clearing up at the end of the day.
	As a pro-life Member of Parliament, the Bill creates a dilemma for me. It outlaws something that I am against—therapeutic cloning—but not everything. Logically, I can understand that, and I appreciate why the Minister would none the less want us to support the Bill. Obviously, if one supports the banning of heroin, that does not necessarily mean that one is in favour of legalising other drugs. Similarly, if one opposes racial discrimination, that does not mean that one supports other aspects of discrimination. I understand that the pro-life argument must be won by the force of logic and that that principle cannot be abandoned. Any amendment that sought to avoid it would be wrong.
	None the less, it has been reasonably argued in the Chamber that the way in which the Government have proceeded has given ammunition to people who suspect that some sharp practice is going on. It is perfectly clear that we are concerned with the reality of what we are doing and not with appearance, but a fairly serious argument has been put to me by people who say that, by merely introducing this simple Bill and ignoring all the other issues, we are supporting those other issues or sweeping them away. It might be suggested that we are ignoring the substantive issues that people want to debate, which are going through on the nod and undiscussed.
	If that argument exists and the Government will harken to it, there is only one thing that they need to do to correct it: ensure a full and prolonged debate that gives no substance whatever to it. Without that debate, pro-life MPs such as myself are left in a dilemma about which we will have to think hard today. Furthermore, speaking not as a pro-life MP, but a new MP, I am simply amazed that we are dealing in this way with something that is a major issue not only for the House, but for humanity.

Alan Beith: Some of the most effective speeches in this debate have also been some of the shortest. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh), who conveyed such important points so briefly, and to the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden) for their contributions. I pay tribute also to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) for drawing our attention to the Lords Select Committee report and to the illogicality of what we are being asked to do today.
	Before I turn to those wider issues, however, I should like to take advantage of the presence of the Advocate–General for Scotland. I do not think that she is winding up the debate, but I should like to point out now that it is not entirely clear to me whether we are dealing with a wholly reserved matter, or whether an enabling or Sewel motion will have to be passed by the Scottish Parliament. If that is the case, how will it relate to the timetabling of the Bill? Perhaps the Minister will be able to clarify that point in her winding-up speech, after her ear has been whispered into. It is relevant to whether we should rush the Bill through today.
	Turning to the wider issue, we are considering not a programme motion, but an old-fashioned guillotine motion. It is the sort of guillotine motion of which I remember Michael Foot introducing five on one day. It has always been a fairly noxious proceeding, but what has made it rather more objectionable—and we are bearing the brunt of this now—is that an ingenious adviser to a previous Leader of the House hit on the great wheeze of incorporating the time for debating this motion into the time that is available for consideration of the Bill itself. The effect was to rob the three-hour timetable motion of its deterrent content. The three hours that are still required previously provided some measure of deterrent and could be used to discourage the Government from using such a procedure. I admit that that was not a very powerful deterrent, but the procedure had a deterrent element. Now it has no such element, however, as the Government can sit back and say, "Ha ha, they will debate the guillotine, and then they won't have any time left for the Bill; not even the little bit that we have offered."
	I am afraid that, in moral terms, that will not do as ground for the Government to stand on. Governments have created this situation and they must now realise that they are offering an insufficient process and shortening it even further by requiring us to discuss whether we should adopt that process in the time that would otherwise be available to debate the substance of the Bill. This is not merely a matter of the debating time that is provided on the first day. As many hon. Members have pointed out, it concerns the staging of a Bill's consideration. These processes are designed to prevent bad legislation.
	I am depressed to say that that is all of a piece with what has been happening generally. The Government's concept of an emergency is extremely wide. It embraces the possibility that there will be reproductive cloning in the next couple of weeks not only in one case, but in thousands of cases that we must attend to. The concept also embraces aspects of the new terrorism legislation, to which I referred earlier, such as the provision of powers relating to the purchase of arms by employees of the Strategic Rail Authority. Heaven knows what other nonsense has been crammed into the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill, which is supposedly an emergency Bill. It even extends to the ability of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to say to the Rail Regulator that he has authority, if he seeks to use his powers, to bring in emergency legislation.
	That is the framework in which we are now operating. Anything can be an emergency, so anything can justify rushing through legislation in a way that cannot ensure that it is properly dealt with. The procedures in our Standing Orders are enfeebled attempts to ensure that legislation is got right, but they will not do that if we have insufficient time and an inadequate process for considering the Bill, as we have today.
	Government always get their legislation wrong. Generally, they amend it during its passage, as they discover that it is wrong and table Government amendments. That will happen to any Government. It would happen to a Liberal Democrat Government just as much as it would to Labour and Conservative Governments. That is an important point. The difficulty of Labour Members is that they are so reluctant to admit that their particular Government can get things wrong.

Ian Gibson: We are never wrong.

Alan Beith: That is what we are up against. Unless Back Benchers in Government parties realise that any Government are, in the nature of things, liable to have difficulty in framing law that will achieve its intended purpose, they are wasting their time here, as we must get the legislation right. I adduce as evidence for my argument the number of Government amendments that were introduced even in respect of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill. They believed that they had got that Bill right, but they had to amend it.
	I remember a Solicitor-General in the previous Conservative Government taking a Bill to a Select Committee. He said afterwards said that when it reached the Committee—this was an unusual process—he discovered that it did not carry out its intended purposes and could not even be amended so that it did so. He was a very honest and honourable Minister and his remarks illustrate a problem that all Governments have. After all, the Minister will not have sat down and drafted the Bill on her own. She must take advice from others who do such things for her, and they, too, are not infallible and can get things wrong.
	If we agree to the motion, the Government will be under enormous pressure not to table an amendment of their own. If it were discovered during debate of the first group of amendments to be considered in Committee that there was a fundamental fault in the Bill, all the advice, especially from the Government Whips Office, would be the same. The advice would be, "For heaven's sake, don't let a manuscript amendment be tabled; we can't disrupt this procedure and must get the Bill through as we have embarked on this course."
	I should like again to adduce evidence on how easily Governments can get these matters wrong.
	I was in Committee on the Hunting Bill in the last Session. It became clear to me on reading that Bill that it would also ban deerstalking. Ministers insisted that that was neither the intention nor the effect of the Bill. A couple of Committee sittings later, they came back and said, "Sorry, we have discovered that it really does ban deerstalking. We will, of course, amend it so that it does not do so."
	That is what happens in proceedings on Bills, but if it happens today, the only recourse that the Government will have will be to persuade you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to accept a manuscript amendment. Then there would have to be a Report stage, because the Bill would have been amended. All the pressure would be on the Government not to do that. So, if the Bill is incorrectly drafted—even for its own narrow purpose—the Government will prevent themselves from putting it right.
	But what would happen if we got past that stage? Let us say that we did not discover that the Bill was wrong this afternoon, but that it was discovered later. Where would we end up? Right back where we started from: coming to the House, because a court case had determined that the Government had got the drafting wrong. We are here today because the previous Bill was not drafted correctly. That was an innocent mistake, no doubt, but the purpose of our proceedings in the House is to try to prevent that from happening by getting the drafting right in the first place.

Bob Spink: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the letter from the Minister which states:
	"The advice we received was that, if challenged, a court was likely to adopt an approach which looks at the purpose of the Act . . . rather than a strictly literal approach which looks only at the wording in the Act"?
	How can we be confident of that? I am certainly not. Are not these words from the Government's own mouth a self-indictment? Are they not an acknowledgement that the wording of the Bill is far from perfect at the moment? Should we not be taking more time to discuss the Bill, rather than railroading it through?

Alan Beith: That letter illustrates the point that I was making earlier, which was that we are in danger of arriving back at the point from which we started, namely that the legislation is not correctly drafted, and that a judge would be unable to construe its purpose from wording so different from the purpose intended. We are getting into the complex territory of Pepper v. Hart, and we should not spend too much time on that this afternoon. Suffice it to say that we cannot rely on a judge interpreting a statute to mean what we meant it to say, if it can clearly be seen not to. That may not be apparent at the initial stages of drafting.
	My plea to Labour Members is to recognise the reality of life in Government. Governments get legislation wrong and it is, therefore, important that the legislative process enables mistakes to be spotted, amendments to be made and other relevant issues to be raised. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak made the significant point that the matters on which the Government are launching an appeal this afternoon are those to which the issue of urgency apply. It may be the preference of the Government—and, perhaps, of many people in the House—to confine the Bill to one part of the problem, but if it becomes apparent in the course of this appeal that that was ill advised, we shall have made an error by rushing the Bill through without at least considering the inclusion of some of the other issues.
	The House has left itself without any process by which to protect the concept of an emergency or of urgency. Most legislative assemblies have some way of distinguishing processes of urgency or emergency. In many cases, they require the agreement of more than one of the parties, or weighted majorities. In some legislatures, the occupant of your office, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the others who occupy the Chair in the House, have a role in deciding whether a Bill should be certified as appropriate for emergency status. We lack any such procedures. I have given three examples, of which this is one, in which legislation—or parts of legislation—to which no one could reasonably apply the concept of urgency has been brought in under urgency procedures.

Oliver Heald: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one of the concerns is that Lord Brennan—who is, after all, a former chairman of the Bar Council and an extremely eminent lawyer—tabled amendments in the other place that were not accepted? His final words in the debate were to the effect that he hoped that the Government would consider the arguments more fully and come up with their own amendments. Of course, none of that has been done.

Alan Beith: That point is well made and reasonable, and comes from a source who has no partisan motive, only a desire to get the law right.
	There are only two ways in which we can now halt this process. One is for the House to defeat this motion, and I appeal to Labour Members who take a close interest in these proceedings to use their votes accordingly and to ignore their pagers. I suspect, however, that more people have been reading their pagers than have been following the proceedings, even on television around the building.
	Secondly, the Government have limited means of bringing the proceedings to a halt, because they alone can introduce dilatory motions on the Bill which would alter the way in which we carry on the proceedings from here. But if the Government are not to create further bad precedents, and further increase their reputation for abusing processes designed for emergencies or urgency, they must change the proceedings on this Bill. Never at any stage in our argument today has the Minister adduced substantial reasons to treat this as a matter of urgency. It is not a matter of urgency. It is important, and should be dealt with reasonably expeditiously, but not in a way that prevents us from getting the legislation right.

David Amess: There has been just one voice in favour of these shabby proceedings this afternoon—that of the Minister. Having listened to many guillotine debates, I think that these proceedings have been historic. We have listened to hon. Members from all parts of the House express outrage about them. In particular, I commend the speeches by the hon. Members for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) and for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden).
	There is no doubt that this is a dreadful Government. The Minister, in trying to justify herself, wrote us all a letter, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) referred earlier.

Anne Campbell: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that there are hon. Members in the House who approve of the motion, but who are not speaking because they want more time to get on to the main business?

David Amess: Oh, for goodness sake. It is a pathetic argument to say that we should not speak on the motion because hon. Members want to get on with the Bill.
	In the letter that the Minister sent to hon. Members she gives the impression that she and her colleagues have taken the time to listen to the points made in the House of Lords, so that the Government could reflect on the issues and the democratically elected Members of the House of Commons could consider this important moral measure. Does the Minister honestly think that these shabby proceedings fulfil the intentions set out in that letter?
	The Government were given a great deal of expert advice, but they failed to listen to it. Who is to blame for this crisis? None other than this rotten Government. They are absolutely incompetent, and they specialise in rubbishy legislation. They have excelled themselves today in showing how low they are prepared to stoop.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the hon. Gentleman giving way?

Hon. Members: He has finished.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: In that case, I will put the question.

Alan Beith: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether, perhaps, the Minister had not indicated quite decisively enough that she wished to intervene to deal with the point that I addressed to the Advocate-General? I wonder whether you could establish whether the Minister or the Advocate-General wished to reply.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Had the Minister indicated that she wished to address the House, I would, of course, have called her.

Oliver Heald: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is this on a point of order?

Oliver Heald: Actually, I was going to ask leave of the House to make one or two remarks.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We have gone past that point now.

Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not a further insult to the House that the Minister has declined to reply to this debate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair.

Question put:—
	The House divided: Ayes 259, Noes 171.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That the following provisions shall apply to the proceedings on the Human Reproductive Cloning Bill [Lords]—

Timetable

1. Proceedings on Second Reading, in Committee, on Consideration and on Third Reading shall be completed at today's sitting and shall be brought to a conclusion, if not previously concluded, at Seven o'clock.

Questions to be put

2. When the Bill has been read a second time—
	(a) it shall, notwithstanding Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any Question being put,
	(b) the Speaker shall leave the Chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.
	3. On the conclusion of proceedings in Committee the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question and, if the Bill is reported with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.
	4. For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 the Speaker or Chairman shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—
	(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
	(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
	(c) the Question on any Amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;
	(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.
	5. On a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

Miscellaneous

6. Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill at today's sitting.
	7. The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after commencement, and Standing Order No. 15(1) shall apply to those proceedings.
	8. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to proceedings on the Bill.
	9. No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken.
	10. No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to the Bill except by a Minister of the Crown.
	11. No debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise) and the Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.
	12. If at today's sitting a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) stands over to Four o'clock and proceedings on the Bill have begun before that time, the Motion for the Adjournment shall stand over until the conclusion of proceedings on the Bill.
	13. If the House is adjourned at today's sitting, or the sitting is suspended, before the conclusion of proceedings on the Bill, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Liam Fox: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. During his pre-Budget statement the Chancellor of the Exchequer made much of the report by Mr. Derek Wanless, especially its comments about methods of funding the national health service in the future. At a press conference today, Mr. Wanless said that it was "presumptuous and premature" to "bury" other models of paying for health care, such as the use of social insurance to meet accelerating NHS costs. Has the Chancellor sought to clarify the impression that he gave the House and the country earlier this week?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair has received no such notification, but Ministers will have heard what has been said.

Orders of the Day
	 — 
	Human Reproductive Cloning Bill[Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

Hazel Blears: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	As the House will know, the other place passed the Bill without amendment on Monday.
	It might help if I explain some of the terminology at the outset. For the purpose of the debate, "human reproductive cloning" means the creation of a new human being through the use of an embryo that has not been created by fertilisation—that is, by the use of sperm and eggs. Cloning may involve the process of cell nuclear replacement, as described in the report of the chief medical officer's expert group, or it may involve another technique such as parthenogenesis. The Bill deals with reproductive cloning—and reproductive cloning alone.
	So-called therapeutic cloning is the use of cloned embryos for research. I shall deal with the background shortly—in particular, I shall refer to the effect of the recent judgment in the High Court—but I shall say now that, although the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 lays down strict rules for the use of embryos in research, as the law stands, as a result of the judgment, those rules apply only to embryos created by fertilisation.
	The deliberate approach adopted in the Bill is not to be prescriptive in regard to cloning techniques. This will ensure that the ban that we seek applies to embryos created in any way other than by fertilisation. It will ensure that we include techniques that may currently be considered unachievable or impossible.

John Gummer: Would the Minister be willing to find a word that is closer to reality than "personalisation"? The trouble with the whole debate is that, in all circumstances, nice comfortable words are used rather than words denoting the reality. The fact is that what is proposed is the banning of something that is unnatural and unacceptable, and which most people find disgraceful. Can we try to use the proper words? "Personalisation" is surely a fabricated term—similar to "termination of pregnancy", which is used in preference to "killing babies".

Hazel Blears: I do not think that I have used the word "personalisation". I am trying to be careful, accurate, clear and focused in describing exactly what we are trying to achieve. The Bill is simple and straightforward, and I am attempting to use language that is not capable of misinterpretation.
	The Bill's purpose is to ban human reproductive cloning by the placing in a woman of an embryo that has been created in any way other than by fertilisation. The effect is, of course, that only an embryo created by fertilisation may lawfully be placed in a woman. The Bill is short and tightly drawn, in order to meet that aim, and that aim only.

Simon Thomas: What consideration has the Minister given to the reproductive cloning of human beings outside a woman's body, in vitro, in animals or even—10, 15 or 20 years down the line—in a man's body? The Bill should take such possibilities into account. Is not the Minister merely plugging the gap when the flood is on the horizon?

Hazel Blears: Those issues have been raised, and I shall come to them. They are important.
	The hon. Gentleman suggests that I am merely plugging a gap. In fact, I am trying to plug a legal loophole. I fully acknowledge the existence of other matters that, if the Government's appeal against the judgment fails, will need to be revisited extensively. I want to record the Government's commitment in this respect: if the appeal fails and a whole area of activity is unregulated, we must clearly ensure that it is properly and rigorously regulated in future. The Bill's purpose is to plug the legal loophole that has arisen as a result of the judgment, and to bring back an arrangement that I think that all Members want—the outlawing of reproductive cloning.

Liam Fox: The Minister says that clarity is important. One of the main reasons why the Government lost the recent case related to the definition of "embryo". What is the definition of "embryo" for the purposes of the Bill? Is it the same as the definition in the 1990 Act?

Hazel Blears: Yes, it is.
	The reason for the court judgment was the construction that the judge put on the terms of the statute. He said that he would take a literal construction of the words used: because of the reference to embryos created by fertilisation, embryos created by cell nuclear replacement or, indeed, other methods would not be covered by the regulatory framework in the 1990 Act.
	The Bill provides the definition of
	"a human embryo . . . created otherwise than by fertilisation".
	We seek to replicate the language used in the 1990 Act, so that confusion is not created by the use of different terms in different pieces of legislation. The framing of the definition in the Bill, however, is intended to bridge a gap that might otherwise exist. The 1990 Act refers to all embryos created by fertilisation; our Bill refers to all embryos created other than by fertilisation. I hope that that will ensure a seamless transition.

Patrick Cormack: The Minister listened to the earlier debate, and knows of concern in the House about the speed with which the Bill is being passed. Can she give a categorical undertaking that, if the Government lose the appeal to which she has referred and further legislation is called for, that legislation will not be rushed through in the same way?

Hazel Blears: If the Government lost the appeal, a series of issues—many of which Members have mentioned today—would need to be considered. Another likely factor is the report of the House of Lords Stem Cell Research Committee that has been examining a range of matters. We may not be able to deal with both those things until January or February next year. We shall need to consider the issues very carefully, especially if there are areas of unregulated activity in what is admittedly an extremely important and sensitive moral, ethical and political issue.

Andy King: We all welcome the Government's attempt to plug the gap. I do not think that a single Member present would say "I am in favour of human cloning". Our concern, I feel, relates to ensuring that we get this right.
	The Bill may be straightforward, but some of us think that it does not go far enough. I welcome the Minister's confirmation that, if we fail to win the appeal, we are committed to revisiting the issue and ensuring that legislation is in place to stop the harvesting and the use of that dreadful technology to subvert current legislation.
	I have no problem with—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been in this place long enough to know that he cannot make a statement in an intervention; he must put a brief question. I think that enough has been heard.

Hazel Blears: As I said, I am trying to ensure that United Kingdom law reflects—

Ann Widdecombe: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Hazel Blears: I shall when I have managed to complete a sentence.
	We are trying to ensure that UK law adequately reflects what Parliament has tried to achieve. The Bill's purpose, therefore, is to enable us to ban human reproductive cloning, for which I think that there is broad support, and to look at the issues, depending on the outcome of the legal process.

Ann Widdecombe: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. I tried to intervene earlier because I did not want to lose the answer given to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack). His question was not whether there will be issues to be discussed—there are issues today to be discussed—but was very specific. He asked the Minister to give a cast-iron guarantee that if we have to discuss those issues further because the Government lose the appeal or for another reason, a proper structured consideration will take place with proper standard time between the various stages of any consequent Bill. That is the question.

Hazel Blears: I assure the right hon. Lady that there will be full and proper discussion and consideration. These are very important and sensitive matters that are important to the whole community.

Evan Harris: The key issue that I should like the Minister to address is what the Government will do if they lose the appeal. Is she saying that if they lose, they will not appeal to the House of Lords, but legislate? What will happen if the Government win and the other side appeals to the House of Lords? If there are further appeals that continue to reverse the judgment, the unclosed loophole may long remain a no man's land.

Hazel Blears: I am keen to avoid getting into that position. There is clearly tension in the issue; some people say that it is urgent and that we should debate it next week while others say that we should wait until we see all the implications once the result of the appeal is known. It would be wrong of me to say that I can anticipate the contents of the Court of Appeal decision. We want to see that judgment before deciding whether it is appropriate to appeal to the House of Lords. If the Government win the appeal, the other side may wish to appeal; I certainly cannot comment on its possible decision. However, we shall seek to expedite the legal process and make our decisions as quickly as we possibly can. We recognise the issue's importance and urgency.

Glenda Jackson: Does not my hon. Friend find it ironic that Opposition Members spent more than two hours castigating the Government for affording insufficient time to examine a very small and tightly focused Bill but are now attempting to bounce the Government into making a commitment based on the hypothetical result of a case that is yet to be heard?

Hazel Blears: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I think that we need to try to make some progress on the substantive matters in the Bill.

Andrew Lansley: As someone who sat through the previous debate without contributing to it because I wanted to get on to the substance of the issue, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way now. I must press her, however, to return to of the implantation of a cloned human embryo in an animal or artificial womb. She seemed to suggest in an earlier reply that the Bill would create seamless provision should the appeal be lost, but it would not do that because another loophole would arise: the implantation of a cloned embryo not in a woman but elsewhere. How do the Government intend to deal with that gap in the legislation?

Hazel Blears: I have made it clear that, should the appeal fail, the Government will have to return to a number of issues—not only that raised by the hon. Gentleman—to ensure that all such activity is properly regulated in a legal framework. We are seeking in this legislation to address the most important issue for Parliament and the public: a ban on human reproductive cloning. I acknowledge that the other issues are important, but they will have to be addressed in the light of the legal judgment and the House of Lords Select Committee report. We can then ensure that the legislation that we pass is robust and properly grounded and addresses the issues that are causing concern.

Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise to you and to the Minister for making this point of order, but I think that it might help the House. Could you make it plain that we will have an opportunity to vote on the reasoned amendment at the end of this debate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I did not, it is true, announce that at the beginning of the debate but was going to do so when the Minister finished speaking. Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh). That job is now done; thank you.

Hazel Blears: I shall try to make some progress.

John Redwood: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Hazel Blears: No, I shall try to make some progress.

Ian Paisley: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Hazel Blears: No, I am not giving way now.
	The Bill's purpose is to ban human reproductive cloning by the placing in a woman of an embryo that has been created in any way other than by fertilisation. I should say a little about the background including the judicial review brought by the ProLife Alliance.
	The judicial review challenged the Government's view that the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 governed all embryos—those created by cell nuclear replacement as well as those created by fertilisation. As hon. Members will know, the High Court decided in its judgment of 15 November—just two weeks ago—that cell nuclear replacement embryos were not governed by the 1990 Act. I shall deal later with the judgment's effect and some of the concerns that have been expressed about the Bill.
	I am not sure that I need to set out a short history of the subject as hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber seem to have a full, in-depth grasp of the issue and the current position.

John Redwood: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Hazel Blears: No, I shall press on a wee bit.
	Hon. Members will know that we had various inquiries, White Papers, Green Papers and legislation before the passage of the 1990 Act. That legislation has lasted us for more than 10 years and provides one of the world's most comprehensive systems of control on the use of embryos in treatment and research.
	The Warnock committee considered cloning, although in the 1980s and early 1990s the science had not developed as it has today. The committee recognised that there would be such developments and discussed the possibility of reproductive and, indeed, therapeutic cloning. Its conclusion on those issues was that
	"public anxiety about these techniques centres, not so much on their therapeutic use, but on the idea of the deliberate creation of human beings with specific characteristics."
	That concern is widely shared today.
	In February 1997, the news of the birth of Dolly the sheep showed for the first time that embryos could be created by the process of cell nuclear replacement that would lead to a live birth in a mammal. It involved replacing the nucleus of an egg—which contains almost all the genetic material—with nucleus taken from an adult cell. The implications of the technique for humans were discussed in the March 1997 report of the Science and Technology Committee, which recorded the fact that the Government and the HFEA were seeking counsel's advice on whether embryos created by cell nuclear replacement would be governed by the 1990 Act.
	The problem with the 1990 Act is that it says, among other things, that embryos governed by the Act are
	"live human embryos where fertilisation is complete".
	The process of cell nuclear replacement, which leads in the normal way to a birth, clearly does not involve fertilisation. Our advice from counsel was that, if challenged, the courts would look at the purpose of the Act—that is, to regulate the creation and use of embryos—rather than look literally at the words used.

John Redwood: Given the awful muddle since 1997 and the failure so far to reflect the will of the House then and now, would not the Minister be well advised to produce a rather stronger measure today, or at a later stage if she cannot do so immediately? I fear that we shall go through precisely the same dreadful process all over again because she is not listening carefully to the very real concerns of hon. Members and the public.

Hazel Blears: I am listening carefully, and I have tried to make it clear that this is a narrow, tightly drawn and focused Bill that will make human reproductive cloning illegal in the United Kingdom, which is what I believe that the public and Parliament want.

Brian Iddon: Does the Minister agree that if the HFEA granted a licence, it would prevent the production of an embryo other than by fertilisation, and its export? In other words, the licence is granted carefully to control the research. Many of the criticisms of the Bill are therefore false.

Hazel Blears: Yes. I am trying to make it clear that the Bill has the specific aim of plugging the legal loophole. I fully recognise that hon. Members have a range of other concerns that may well need to be addressed, but the important priority today is to ensure that we pass the Bill.
	In the previous debate several hon. Members mocked the fact that the Government had received advice that the courts were likely to construe the legislation in a purposive way. In fact, Mr. Justice Crane, in his judgment two weeks ago said that the Government had a powerful argument for a purposive construction and he has given us leave to appeal. The Government did not receive bad legal advice and were not caught out by the judgment. The judge himself said that there was a powerful argument for a purposive construction but, in the circumstances, he chose a literal construction and was not prepared to infer that the 1990 Act covered embryos created by means other than fertilisation. Therefore, I do not accept that the issue is clear cut or black and white. Litigation occurs precisely because issues are unclear, and the Government were right to take counsel's advice and proceed accordingly.

Martin Smyth: It was the lack of clarity about which Bernard Braine, when he was a Member of Parliament in the 1990s, was worried. Some of us are still concerned that issues other than the narrow one covered by the Bill need to be dealt with, which is why we ask that the legal brains in the Department of Health come back in the near future with a Bill that will tighten the law properly.

Hazel Blears: I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that the brains in the Department will be focused on all the issues raised by hon. Members in their contributions today.

Ian Paisley: In the previous debate, I mentioned Europe. If the Minister intends to revisit the matter in further legislation, it is important to decide the Government's attitude to the different approach being taken in Europe.

Hazel Blears: The hon. Gentleman said in the previous debate that he was pleased that the issue was one for national competence, as am I, but we will take into account the views of the European Parliament temporary committee, which is in plenary session today. Its deliberations will form part of the information that we will consider, but we will continue to deal with the matter as part of our national competence.
	On the basis of proper legal advice, the Government took the view that all embryos that have the potential to become human life are regulated by the 1990 Act and subject to all its protective provisions and regulation by the HFEA—that anyone who wanted to create an embryo by fertilisation or in any other way, such as by cell nuclear replacement, would require a licence from the HFEA and would have to satisfy the stringent conditions laid down in the Act. Anyone who created or used embryos without a licence would be subject to the Act's criminal sanctions, involving a fine or imprisonment or both. Our approach to the definition of "embryo" also meant that the creation of embryos by cell nuclear replacement for research, which has enormous potential for finding cures for serious diseases, could go ahead subject to the full rigour of regulation of such research under the 1990 Act, including licensing by the HFEA.
	In the event, in the judicial review brought by the ProLife Alliance, Mr. Justice Crane, while acknowledging that the Government had a "powerful case", decided to adopt a literal interpretation of the words used. The effect of his judgment is that embryos created other than by fertilisation are not regulated by the 1990 Act. In practical terms, that means that as the law stands anyone may create an embryo by cell nuclear replacement and use it either for reproductive cloning or for research purposes without regulation under the Act. We were given leave to appeal against the judge's decision. We have lodged that appeal this afternoon and we intend to pursue it.
	It is important to note that the judgment, while limiting the type of embryos to which the 1990 Act applied, did not affect the operation of the Act in any way: nor did it affect the Research Purposes Regulations 2001. The Act and the regulations continue fully to protect embryos created by fertilisation and used in treatment and research.

Liam Fox: What will be the position in respect of the exportation of CNR embryos after the passage of the Bill, taking into account the 1990 Act and the requirement for the issue of licences?

Hazel Blears: As the law stands today, the creation of embryos by cell nuclear replacement and their use is not regulated. The hon. Gentleman raises an important matter that will need to be taken into account, but the purpose of the Bill is to deal with human reproductive cloning in the UK.
	As hon Members are aware, the purposes for which embryos may be used in research were extended earlier this year, following considerable debate in this House and in another place.

Brian Iddon: Assuming that the Bill is enacted, it is important to establish whether the HFEA would have the power, under the licences that it grants, to prevent the situation mentioned by the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox).

Hazel Blears: I have just answered that question. As the law stands, the HFEA would not have that power. Those matters need to be addressed, but the Bill is an urgent measure designed to deal with a particular issue.
	Earlier this year, the Research Purposes Regulations 2001 extended the use to which embryos could be put. Both Houses voted by very large majorities to permit embryos to be used for stem cell research in the light of evidence of the enormous potential benefits of such research for treating some very serious and disabling conditions.
	I have said that the aim of the Bill is to ban human reproductive cloning. That meets the Government's aim, announced in August 2000, to introduce legislation to place the ban on reproductive cloning on a statutory footing. Previously, the ban was based on the HFEA's decision not to issue a licence should anyone seek to carry out reproductive cloning, but under the law as it stands following the judgment anyone could clone embryos in the UK without having to apply for a licence. That is why we need the Bill.

Paul Goodman: The essence of the Minister's case is that we need the Bill today to fill a legal loophole. Will she please explain why we need that loophole filled today, why it is being filled in such a short time and why she is refusing to address in the Bill the concerns raised by my right hon. and hon. Friends and others?

Hazel Blears: I explained in the previous debate that we must take these measures urgently because of the stated intention of people from overseas to come here and undertake human reproductive cloning. Another factor is the developments in the US last week, which show that the technology has moved on. If we allowed a lengthy delay, human reproductive cloning could take place in this country, despite the fact that all hon. Members and the public agree that they do not want that to happen. Therefore, it is right to introduce a tightly drawn measure to ensure that it cannot happen.

Ian Taylor: Will the Minister confirm the irony of the fact that it is the ProLife Alliance that has left us in this confusion? The consequences of our unregulated state are a direct result of its actions.

Hazel Blears: It is unfortunate that the current position is that an embryo created by fertilisation has the full protection of the law and regulation by HFEA, but one created by cell nuclear replacement technology does not. That is a matter for concern.
	Of course, with any judgment in the High Court, we would in the ordinary way await the outcome of the legal process before deciding on the best way forward. If the outcome proves to be in the Government's favour, all embryos, however they are created, would continue to be governed by the protective provisions in the 1990 Act, and reproductive cloning would continue to be banned by the HFEA.
	In this case, however, the Government have made absolutely clear on many occasions their opposition to reproductive cloning and their intention to introduce a Bill on the matter. As other hon. Members have noted, that was a manifesto commitment, and it is what concerns the House today.
	The prospects of leaving unregulated—in the light of the judgment—the safety and ethical issues involved in bringing into the world artificially a cloned human being are such that the Government have decided to introduce a Bill to address the issue, on which there is overwhelming public and worldwide support.
	Of course we need to have a debate, but I doubt that we will hear in the House today, or in another place, any real argument that we should not ban reproductive cloning, or that we should not be proposing one today. However, the wider questions relating to the research use of embryos created by cell nuclear replacement, although very important, do not require an urgent response in the same way as reproductive cloning and we shall, as is absolutely proper, await the outcome of the Government's appeal.
	If the Government lose that appeal, we have made it clear that we will introduce further legislation when parliamentary time allows to ensure that cloned embryos have fully the same protection as embryos created by fertilisation.

John Redwood: The Minister makes a powerful case for committing us to the legislative seas, and I welcome what she has said about the Government's intentions, but would not it be better to go to sea in a boat than in a sieve? She has also admitted that there will be many loopholes in the legislation that she is proposing, and she has not explained that.

Hazel Blears: No, I have made it clear that the Bill is aimed at preventing the mischief of human reproductive cloning in the UK, and I have explained that the Bill will succeed in doing so.
	The Government's view on the regulation of CNR embryos used in research is that the practice should not be banned, but that it should be allowed to continue under the strict regulatory scheme of the 1990 Act. That will properly put into effect the will of Parliament, which was decided after lengthy debate on the research regulations earlier this year.

Lynne Jones: The problem is that human reproductive cloning does not begin when the embryo is implanted into the woman. The process involved is similar to that used in therapeutic cloning, which is completely unregulated in this country, as my hon. Friend the Minister has acknowledged. That is a far more urgent matter than banning the implantation of such an embryo. No one has so far created an embryo ready for implantation, but we allow people to experiment in that direction. That is the big loophole that the Bill does not close.

Hazel Blears: My hon. Friend would be the first to acknowledge that the science in this area is moving on very quickly indeed. We must take measures to ensure that no embryos are implanted in women in the way that has been described.

Lynne Jones: Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?

Hazel Blears: No, I want to make progress, and deal with the provisions of the Bill.
	The Bill is very simple, with just two clauses. The first clause deals with the offence, and provides that a person who places in a woman a human embryo that has been created otherwise than by fertilisation is guilty of an offence. The wording is very similar to that used in the 1990 Act, which, for example, makes it an offence to place in a woman an embryo other than a live human embryo.
	If the embryo has been created by fertilisation—that is, using sperm and eggs—it will fall into the definition of "embryo" under the 1990 Act, and will be subject to all the protection of that Act. However, if the embryo has been created in any way other than by fertilisation—and that includes techniques such as cell nuclear replacement and parthenogenesis—it may not be implanted into a woman. As I mentioned earlier, by not defining or listing these techniques we have ensured that the Bill bans any procedure that is currently known about, and those that may be developed in the future.
	Any attempt at listing or defining banned procedures would almost certainly ensure that this Bill would be out of date within months, given the advances taking place in this area. We have therefore adopted the approach that makes it an offence to place any embryo into a woman other than one created by fertilisation. That is a sensible approach in the current circumstances.
	The Bill provides also that a person who commits the offence is liable on conviction on indictment, in a Crown court, to a term of imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, or a fine, or both. However, as with offences under the 1990 Act that also raise particular issues of public policy, a prosecution cannot be brought under the Bill without the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Michael Weir: Clause 1(3) provides that a prosecution can be brought only with the consent of the DPP. I have tabled an amendment for consideration in Committee because I am concerned that there is no provision to ensure that, in Scotland, such a prosecution may be brought might only by the Lord Advocate. There exists in Scotland a procedure that allows private prosecutions to be brought, although its use is extremely rare. I am worried that the Bill does not specifically close that loophole.
	I should be interested to know what the Minister thinks about that, as I can think of two such cases that have been brought in the past few years.

Hazel Blears: I am aware that the hon. Gentleman has tabled an amendment on this matter, so it might be helpful if I deal with the point now.
	In Scotland, the Lord Advocate heads the prosecution system. Constitutionally, he is the only person who can institute criminal prosecutions, unless someone has applied for a Bill of Letters to be issued in the High Court of Justiciary for permission to bring a private prosecution. That course of action is extraordinarily rare.
	The situation in Scotland is therefore different from that in England. In Scotland, it is normally the Lord Advocate who brings prosecutions, whereas in England prosecutions can be brought by local authorities and a range of different enforcement authorities. In England, therefore, in connection with matters of public policy, legislation must provide that the DPP will be consulted. In Scotland, the person normally bringing proceedings is the Lord Advocate, so the Bill need not contain an equivalent requirement. The constitutional difference means that the Lord Advocate will normally be the person bringing the prosecution, so there is no need to seek his consent or involve him in the proceedings.
	It is a technical, legal distinction, but an important one, given the different legal systems in Scotland and England.

Andrew Lansley: I recognise that in clause 1(3) the Minister is simply following the provisions of section 42 of the 1990 Act, but would not it have been simpler and more targeted for the Government to amend section 3(2) of that Act? That would have brought the placing in a woman of an embryo created otherwise than by fertilisation under the short list of prohibitions contained in that section. The result would have been that an offence would have been created in the same way as is provided for in the Bill. Why do the Government prefer to have two pieces of legislation, when one could have been amended?

Hazel Blears: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman is correct. The 1990 Act is extensive, with many clauses and schedules and many definitions. I am not convinced that his suggestion is a more accurate drafting point. The Bill is drafted to achieve an objective. I believe that it will achieve that objective, and that the House should support it this afternoon for that reason.
	Clause 2 extends the provisions of the Bill to Northern Ireland, and provides that it may be extended to the Channel Islands if an order is made. The Bill is a UK Bill, and so of course extends to Scotland and Wales. That makes the extent of the Bill the same as that of the 1990 Act.
	Questions have been asked about the extension of the Bill to Scotland. I should like to reassure hon. Members that the Bill does extend to Scotland, and that the offences under the Bill cannot be prosecuted in Scotland without the permission of the Lord Advocate. The convention for Westminster Bills that apply to Scotland in this way is that they all apply to Scotland unless the converse is stated on the face of the Bill.
	These are wholly reserved matters. The right hon. Member for Berwick–upon–Tweed (Mr. Beith) asked whether a Sewel motion would be needed on this issue, but I can assure him that it is a wholly reserved matter. Schedule 5, part II, head J3 to the Scotland Act 1998 covers embryology, surrogacy and genetics, and specifically refers to the subject matter of the 1990 Act. It is therefore covered perfectly properly in the Bill.
	The Bill does not use terms such as "cell nuclear replacement" or "cloning" because such terms may mean different things both now and in the future in an area of rapidly developing science, and because the Bill is aimed at preventing anything other than fertilised embryos using sperm and eggs from being implanted into a woman. That is the mischief at which it is aimed.
	The additional and very significant benefits of that approach arise from the fact that all embryos created by fertilisation—which are the only embryos that may be implanted under this Bill—are automatically subject to the full protection of the 1990 Act. That means that the only embryos that may be implanted into a woman are those that are subject to licensing by the authority.
	The only question that needs to be asked, therefore, is: how was the embryo created? If the answer is by fertilisation, the embryo may be implanted, but only in accordance with a licence. If the answer is by a means other than fertilisation, as a result of this Bill the embryo may not be implanted at all. This approach means that current and future techniques that may not be described as cloning will be fully covered by the ban.
	As we have seen with the 1990 Act, the science is developing. What is not thought possible as an embryo today may well be an embryo tomorrow. This Bill concerns reproductive cloning. It addresses those embryos that may develop to become a human being. There is absolutely no reason why we should seek to restrict the definition of what an embryo created other than by fertilisation is, because any such attempt is likely to become out of date in a short time. Nor is there any point in trying to define what we mean by an embryo created by fertilisation because that is fully covered by the 1990 Act.

David Cameron: Perhaps the Minister can help to clear up the confusion. It concerns to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley). If the problem is that cloned embryos are not subject to the restrictions that embryos produced by sperm and egg are, why not make cloned embryos subject to the 1990 Act by amending that legislation?

Hazel Blears: I have already dealt with that matter in my answer to the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley). Extensive amending legislation might be required, but today we are considering urgent emergency legislation to deal with a particular issue of great concern to people inside and outside the House. It is a small, direct Bill, not extensive amending legislation.

Lynne Jones: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Hazel Blears: No, I want to make some progress.
	There was considerable debate in the other place about whether a one-cell embryo was an embryo. This Bill is clear that it governs any embryo created other than by fertilisation. Any embryo is a human embryo if it has the potential, should it be implanted, to develop into a human being from the moment it is created. That includes a one-cell embryo. I hope that that clears the matter up.

Evan Harris: I understand the Government's difficulty in not seeking to outline further definitions. A question has been raised about a dedifferentiated cell that was originally produced from an embryo formed by fertilisation but that has been taken back to the embryonic stage by a method of dedifferentiation. Would that fall within the fertilised regulation or the other- than-created-by-fertilisation provision in the Bill? If the Minister does not know, does she accept that that is a problem?

Hazel Blears: I am not entirely sure what kind of cell the hon. Gentleman refers to, but I will certainly endeavour during today's proceedings to ensure that he gets a full and comprehensive answer to his point.

William Cash: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Hazel Blears: No, I will not give way at this point.
	Several hon. Members have expressed concern about the prospect of taking a cloned embryo abroad. It is true to say that following the judgment there is nothing to stop someone creating a cloned embryo in the UK and sending it for use by a woman in treatment abroad. I am not aware that anyone wants to do that at this stage.
	As the law stands, the 1990 Act governs only embryos created by fertilisation, but the Act gives the HFEA control over practices in licensed clinics that are not strictly regulated by the Act. Obviously it is a matter for the HFEA to decide, but I hope that if that situation were to occur it would take that into account in looking at how clinics and individuals are licensed to carry out such activity.
	The possibility of placing embryos in animals, men or artificial wombs has been raised. I understand hon. Members' concerns about those matters. If the judgment is lost, all the issues will need to be considered.
	The Government appreciate that there may be concern about the potential research uses of a variety of techniques. We have promised, therefore, a legislative response on the research use of embryos created by cell nuclear replacement. We will certainly commit ourselves to doing that, should we lose the appeal. There will be a whole range of issues to consider, and we hope that we will also have the benefit of the conclusions of the House of Lords Select Committee report to help us with that consideration.
	In summary, the Government take the view that the Bill is necessary to ensure that no one considers the United Kingdom as an option for undertaking human reproductive cloning. In the light of the High Court judgment, it is important that we pass the Bill. There are, of course, other issues that flow from the judgment relating to the use of cloned embryos in research. The Government are concerned that those embryos are given the same protection as embryos created by fertilisation. For that reason the Government are appealing against the High Court decision. If the appeal succeeds, the cloned embryos will also be protected by the 1990 Act. If the appeal fails, the Government will introduce legislation to ensure that research on cloned embryos is properly and rigorously regulated.
	The Bill encapsulates the views of the vast majority of British people who find the possibility of human reproductive cloning abhorrent and I commend it to the House.

Liam Fox: There is a difference of approach between the Government and the Opposition on this issue in that the Government have a three-line Whip in operation and the Opposition have a free vote. Perhaps it would be useful at the outset if I set out why the Opposition take this view.
	Our decision not to oppose the Bill is based on three separate reasons. First, during deliberations over many months the House has repeatedly made it clear that there is no wish for reproductive cloning to be legal in the United Kingdom. The second reason relates to the perceived threat of such reproductive cloning taking place pending the Government's appeal in the Quintavalle case, especially given the length of the legal process that may be involved. I hope that the Government will further clarify their intentions should they fail in their action. The third reason is the need to bolster public confidence in bioscience in the United Kingdom. To undermine that is to damage our research and development.
	It is no secret that I personally oppose embryonic stem cell research in all its forms, but the Bill is not an appropriate vehicle for those of us who seek to go further in that direction. If the Government lose the appeal, they will need substantial primary legislation to deal with many of the issues that have already been raised. For the sake of clarification, will the Minister give a firm commitment to take a full primary legislative approach to the issues raised in the debate? Many of us could not support the Government if we thought that they might renege on that promise.

Hazel Blears: indicated assent

Liam Fox: I take the Minister's nod as assent to my proposition.
	The Bill is at best a stop-gap measure, to use the term of Lord Hunt in the other place. Even if the Government win their appeal, it is obvious that many issues will remain to be tackled, so they will still need to introduce primary legislation.
	The intervention of the hon. Member for Bolton, South–East (Dr. Iddon) was instructive. He mistakenly believed that the Government's change of definitions in the short Bill today would bring export and experimentation under the HFEA. The Minister pointed out that that would not be the case. That is one of the strongest arguments for further legislation, a useful model for which would be the procedure that we used for the Adoption and Children Bill. Substantial pre-legislative scrutiny of anything that the Government propose in this area would be useful because there is much expert knowledge that the House would like to draw on before we further debate these matters. If that is good enough for adoption legislation, it is certainly good enough for an important ethical matter such as this.
	We need clarity, definition and honesty from the Government in this debate. We also need to put the debate into the appropriate ethical perspective. In the other place, Lord Winston said:
	"it is my view that science—knowledge—does not have a moral dimension".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 November 2001; Vol. 629, c. 25.]
	All hon. Members believe that any application of knowledge has a moral dimension, and that we in the House have an absolute right to set the moral and ethical limits within which science in the United Kingdom is allowed to operate, and that any moral free-for-all, simply because science was capable of it, would be wholly unacceptable.
	There is another argument that needs to be tackled: many say that we should not stop such research in the United Kingdom because it will be undertaken elsewhere, and we should not put our science base at a disadvantage. The problem there is that we confuse globalisation with powerlessness. We can at least set proper ethical limits for our own country; the House of Commons is the appropriate place to do that.
	The Government's approach to much of this area has been sloppy and contradictory. I refer specifically to the debate on this subject on 15 December 2000, in which we received assurances from the Government about the state of the regulations that we were discussing. The Under–Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), said:
	"I turn to the issues surrounding cell nuclear replacement technique. Many have said that the regulations will open the door to human reproductive cloning. I cannot say more strongly that human reproductive cloning is illegal; it will stay illegal. The regulations do not permit it. They do not even permit research into it."—[Official Report, 15 December 2000; Vol. 359, c. 883.]
	It is clear that the advice given to the House on that day was wrong. It is also clear that the Government did not believe it. If they did, why did their manifesto state:
	"we will ban by law human cloning."
	If the Government already thought that that was illegal, why did they feel it necessary to introduce further legislation? That is a legitimate question for the House to ask because we have been given assurances by a Minister in the House of Commons. The Government got it wrong. When did they realise that the regulations that they had guaranteed would not allow cloning would in fact allow it? It is important to know that if we are to bolster confidence in the advice that the Government receive from their advisers.

Anne Campbell: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that in the debate on human therapeutic cloning that took place several months ago, the Minister made clear her intention to introduce primary legislation at an early stage to ban human reproductive cloning?

Liam Fox: I refer again to Hansard. The Minister said that such cloning was
	"illegal; it will stay illegal. The regulations do not permit it."
	At some point between then and the publication of the Labour manifesto, the Government must have realised that that would not hold up in court. It would thus be helpful if the House could know when they realised that. Today, we are listening in good faith to specific legal advice given to the Government. If their legal advice on the issue was not watertight then, what faith can we have in it today? That is a reasonable point for the House to make to a Minister. Definitions are important.
	During that debate on the embryology regulations, we discussed another point that the Government need to tighten up: the definition of "serious disease". The Minister said:
	"Ultimately, it will be for the HFEA or the courts to interpret the term 'serious disease'."
	When asked for a better definition, because that would be required by the courts, the Minister said:
	"Clearly, the House will have its own view of what 'serious disease' means . . . It is not something that the HFEA and ultimately, the courts, if necessary, will have a serious problem in determining."—[Official Report, 15 December 2000; Vol. 359, c. 879-83.]
	The Government will have to draft much tighter legislation than they have done previously in that policy area. That is true of the Bill, but the point also applies much more to the necessary legislation that they will have to introduce whether or not they lose their appeal.
	There is a further question about the definition of embryos. Had the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 included a different definition, the Government would have probably won the Quintavalle case. That was clear from the judgment. However, I return to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley): why not simply amend the primary legislation? The Minister's answer was that speed was the issue and that the measure offered a speedy way to do that. However, she must already realise that trying to provide a speedy answer to the Government's dilemma has produced as many problems as are being solved by this method of blocking the loophole that we all want plugged. The Government should have considered that before they rushed out the Bill.

Lynne Jones: When the Science and Technology Committee considered the matter, it decided that the 1990 Act was robust but that the definition of "embryo" should be amended. We recommended that it should include any manipulation of cells that results in an organism potentially capable of growing into a human. Such an amendment would have more successfully blocked all the loopholes than the Bill.

Liam Fox: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her expertise in the matter. She makes an important point: the Government should have given more thought to how they wanted to close the loophole. During my time as a Member, I have known the hon. Lady to be more robust than most in making her points to Ministers, so I shall endeavour to keep my comments as short as possible to ensure that she gets the opportunity to do so.
	Another reason given by the Government for rushing the measure through the House was the case of Professor Antinori and others—a point referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman). If the Government are speeding the Bill through to stop the professor and others who might want to rush to the UK to carry out this type of research, they should realise that the HFEA can already refuse a licence to anyone to store eggs for any research under the 1990 Act. I do not understand why that would not stop anyone who wanted to undertake research that the Government deemed unsavoury because of what that person had done elsewhere. A specific answer on that point would be most useful.
	Many of my hon. Friends have points to make, so this is my final comment. The Bill prevents only the implementation of CNR embryos. It does nothing to prevent widespread research, experimentation and even exportation. That is one of its biggest failures. Those of us who support the Government's aims are disappointed at the quality of the Bill and many of those who support their aims have grave doubts as to their competence and will require further legislation before our fears are laid to rest.

Anne Begg: I intend to keep my comments brief, as I appreciate the lack of time that is constantly being mentioned and that many Opposition Members want to make important points. However, it is worth clarifying exactly what we are debating.
	As hon. Members can read in Hansard, it is clear from my contributions to the debates last December that I strongly support therapeutic cloning but, like probably all hon. Members, find reproductive cloning abhorrent. I made a detailed case for why we should allow therapeutic cloning, and I shall not rehearse those arguments today. However, I was reassured by the Minister's statement then that primary legislation would be introduced to outlaw reproductive cloning. That is what we are discussing today and I want to keep the two issues separate.
	Such legislation was promised, regardless of any High Court judgment but such a judgment has produced confusion in today's debate. Perhaps it is also the reason for the speed with which the measure has been introduced. However, such a measure would have been introduced at some time, and probably in much the same terms. There is no argument but that the Bill is necessary and that most hon. Members agree with that.
	Most hon. Members want the implantation into women of cloned embryos that could grow into human beings to be clearly outlawed. No one would argue about that, but confusion and much obfuscation has been caused by the fact that, two weeks ago, the High Court judgment cast doubt on the interpretation of what exactly constitutes an embryo, as defined by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990.
	I hope that the Government's appeal will be successful and that all the assurances that cloned embryos are covered by the 1990 Act that we were given when we considered the regulations to allow therapeutic cloning in December were correct. The appropriate time for the kind of detailed debate that we are having today will be when that appeal is determined. I hope that the Minister will ensure that, if the Government lose the appeal and it is necessary for them to propose further legislation to amend the 1990 Act, sufficient time will be allowed to discuss all the issues that hon. Members have consistently raised today.

Liam Fox: Does the hon. Lady accept that it has become clear in today's debates that, even if the Government win the appeal, the Bill will not cover many of the issues that hon. Members have raised and that further legislation will be necessary in any case?

Anne Begg: We must await the report of the House of Lords Select Committee on Stem Cell Research before considering whether those issues are covered by the 1990 Act. When we debated the issue in December, it was clear that the Government's legal advice was that the 1990 Act indeed covered all aspects of embryos created in this way. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) said that if that were not the case, a simple amendment to the 1990 Act could be made. I do not know the Act in enough detail to say whether he is right that the definition of the word "embryo" could be changed in that way, although my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) suggests that that might be possible. If so, that is how the change should be made, and I hope that it will be that easy.

Andrew Lansley: If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I shall clarify my suggestion. I was suggesting not that a change should be made to the definition of the word "embryo" used in the 1990 Act, but that a specific prohibition should be introduced, such as that which exists on the placing into women of live embryos other than human embryos. Similarly, prohibiting the placing into women of embryos created otherwise than by fertilisation would deliver exactly the intention of the Government in the 1990 Act.

Anne Begg: I understand the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that the Bill is unnecessary because changes could have been made by amending the 1990 Act. I would accept that point, but I felt, especially given the reassurances that the Minister gave in December, that we would introduce separate primary legislation, if necessary, because that was a matter of public confidence.
	There has been much reference today to the tabloid press determining what happens in the House, but the tabloid newspapers have had an effect on public opinion. I know from the discussions that I have had that there is much confusion about the issue, which is not helped by the way that the tabloid press has suggested that there will be lots of cloned individuals in future. The cartoons directed at the Government and our Prime Minister that appear not only in the tabloid but the quality press have helped give the impression that we are one step away from cloning lots of people in our own image. We find that abhorrent, as do hon. Members on both sides of the House, and we must deal with that public confidence issue.
	I accept the need for separate primary legislation, such as that proposed in the Bill, to restore public confidence in scientists so that we can distinguish between human reproductive cloning, which we all find abhorrent, and human therapeutic cloning, which people, such as myself, think has great potential to do a huge amount of good, especially in fighting neurological degenerative diseases. That is why I hope that the rest of today's debate will focus on the Bill, not on the interpretation of the 1990 Act, which should be considered if the Government lose the appeal that is currently before the courts.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak is right that such legislation is urgent and important, but the Government cannot introduce it until the legal position is settled. That will happen only when the appeal has been heard and a final decision taken, so I accept the Government's position on that issue. However, as I have already suggested to the Minister, such issues need to be properly aired if the appeal is lost, and we must then ensure that the legislation is leak-proof. I appeal to the House to concentrate on the Bill because we all agree that it is wrong for scientists to embark on human reproductive cloning. Please let us debate that issue, because that is what we must outlaw, and we must not take our eye off the ball.

Evan Harris: I should first like to explain that there will be a free vote for Liberal Democrats on this issue, as did the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) from the Conservative Front Bench. The Liberal Democrats have always thought that such matters should be subject to a free vote, so our Whips do not compel us to turn up, or to vote one way or the other. However, the party does debate such matters, has policies on them and advises Liberal Democrat Members on how they should vote if they wish to follow the conference policy. Nevertheless, we recognise that this is a matter of conscience for individual Members. Although I speak from the Front Bench and have strong views on pro-life and pro-choice issues and reproductive cloning and therapeutic cloning, I take pains to make it clear to colleagues that they are by no means bound by what I have to say about our policies.
	I agree with a further, clear statutory separate ban on human reproductive cloning, and have done so for some time. That was my view well before last year's debates, because the Liberal Democrats had said that we wanted such a separate definitive ban. In that respect, it will be difficult for me to oppose the Bill on Second Reading, and I shall certainly support it on Third Reading, because we agree with it. However, we are concerned about the way in which the Government have gone about the issue. We are concerned about what is not in the Bill, rather than what is in it. Indeed, I find that I share a viewpoint with people who take an opposite point of view from me on the legitimacy of therapeutic cloning and on whether embryos should be used at all. I do not find that difficult or embarrassing. We cannot choose our allies in any parliamentary debate, and it is not reasonable to say that we should not take a view in case we find that we have allies that we previously did not have.
	Many reasonable concerns have been raised by those whom I shall call the pro-life lobby. I do not use that term in a negative nor, indeed, a positive way because I suspect that, in many cases, they are not necessarily pro-life. However, I do not believe that their concern that the Bill does not include measures further to restrict therapeutic cloning is reasonable. That is one of the reasons why I cannot support the reasoned amendment, under which the Bill would not be given a Second Reading because it does not reopen the issue of therapeutic cloning.
	We had lengthy debates in the House last year. Indeed, many hon. Members who took part in those excellent debates are present. There were lengthy debates on the issue in the House of Lords, and there was extensive coverage of the issue. As I said at the time, I regret that those debates were not on amendable legislation. They were on regulations or were held under an Adjournment motion. Substantive amendments would have focused the debates. Nevertheless, I believe that this House and the House of Lords have given a view on the matter by large majorities, although the House of Lords did so with the caveat that a Select Committee should be set up.
	The Select Committee has taken extensive evidence and, by all accounts, has done its work extremely thoroughly. It is due to report shortly. People on both sides of the question should reasonably expect any recommendations that the Committee makes to be the subject of separate legislation. I am positively hostile to the view that this Bill—which is designed to close, however unsatisfactorily the loophole created by the judgment three weeks ago—should seek to reopen other issues.
	I wish to say something positive about the Bill on Second Reading, and I shall do so. When we pass the Bill, as I suspect that we will, and it becomes an Act, it will strengthen the position of those of us, including those on the Government Front Bench and many Members in all parties, who support the principle of research being allowed to be carried out on early embryos that are obtained from both fertilisation and from cell nuclear replacement. That will assist research into cures for serious diseases.
	That is not what are debating today, but one of the arguments against the position that the Government and I take is that there is a slippery slope that leads inevitably to human reproductive cloning. The fact that this Bill draws a line in the sand undermines that argument. I would not have accepted that argument in any event, but I hope that the Bill will persuade people that it is possible to legislate for limits and that one can delineate and debate appropriate regulations on embryos short of the abomination that is represented by human reproductive cloning.

William Cash: In the light of the earlier debate, will the hon. Gentleman tell us why he is in favour of other therapeutic research but appears not to disagree with me when I say that stem cell research provides an alternative when it involves adults rather than embryos? With his qualifications as a distinguished doctor, will he answer that question?

Evan Harris: In the main, I speak without using those qualifications. One does not need to have medical qualifications to debate this issue, as the hon. Gentleman has done expertly.
	Although the subject that the hon. Gentleman raised probably falls within the remit of Second Reading, I am not keen to go into it, except to say that, assuming that the Government win the appeal, the regulations that were passed made it clear that the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority will not offer a licence for stem cell work on embryos—whether through fertilisation or by cell nuclear replacement—if there appears to be an alternative that does not involve the use of embryos. I share the view that this and previous Governments have taken since the Warnock committee reported—that embryos have a special status. Although that does not give them complete protection when there are therapeutic benefits to be had from their use at an early stage, their use should be avoided if at all possible.
	Allowing embryonic stem cell research—when there is no alternative—and adult stem cell research to go together will enable us to ensure that we get the best research. I think that everyone's hope is that therapies will, in the end, be based on adult stem cells, because they will be easier to obtain in some cases. We will not be faced with the shortage of eggs that might limit the supply of tissue for transplantation. The general scientific view is that we need the research from embryonic stem cells to inform research on stem cells of all kinds. This is not the time to go into that debate in detail, but I hope that we shall have the opportunity to do so in the future. The House should consider that subject regularly. When the House of Lords Select Committee reports and when the Government introduce other legislation—as they will have to do to implement the Donaldson report recommendations that they have not yet implemented—that debate will take place. I welcome the opportunity to have that debate, but I fear that the Government do not. That is why they often appear so unwilling to discuss the issues.
	The Bill shows that a line can clearly be drawn. The second argument in its favour is that it will restore public confidence. In the debate on the timetable motion, I asked whether it was appropriate to assume that there is no public confidence on the basis of some adverse media coverage of a judgment. I asked whether introducing legislation that is not as complete as it might have been and that has not been consulted on as widely as it might be does restore public confidence or, rather, provides momentum to those in the public and the media who feel that the Government do not have a grip on the situation. The fact that we are debating an emergency Bill in one day sends the signal that there is a problem here. That would not have happened if the Government had approached the issue in a more measured way.
	The third argument for the Bill is that there is the real and present danger of the implantation of a cloned embryo into a woman with a view to human reproductive cloning. That view has been expressed by Conservative Members, but I do not believe that a real and present danger exists. For it to be possible, there would have to be a reliable way of producing a human embryo from cell nuclear replacement, and there is not. First, even the news from America in the past week suggests that there is not a reliable way of getting an embryo to the stage where it continues to develop into a blastocyst. The case developed by Advanced Cell Technology was a pre-blastocyst human embryo.
	Secondly, an Italian self-publicist would have to find collaborators in this country to carry out such work. As Lord Winston said in the House of Lords debate—I paraphrase him—someone who had a licence in this country to do the work regulated by the HEFA would be working outside that licence if he did such work with Professor Antinori. The fact that, since 1990, no one working in the field has lost their licence shows just how seriously they take their obligations under the existing law.
	Thirdly, I do not believe that eggs are easily available to do such work. The storage of eggs for the creation of cloned embryos is still covered by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. Therefore, this Bill is not required to stop those eggs being used; the law already exists for that. Fourthly, I do not believe that Professor Antinori would find a medical doctor, as opposed to a scientist, who is willing to get involved with the process of implanting such an embryo into a woman with a view to making her pregnant, let alone find a woman prepared to accept the significant risks of miscarriage and worse that such a procedure involves.
	Putting all those factors together, it seems to me that there is no realistic prospect—not even a possibility that the Government might feel that they should legislate for—of that happening within the time scale of considered legislation or an appeal. The fact that an Italian self-publicist has been wholly unregulated in Italy—there is no regulation there—and has not been able to make any progress towards his desired aims provides further evidence of the fact that he is publicising himself rather than significant work. On that basis, the Government did not need to bring us to this stage.
	Should we be here at all? Despite the advice that the Government received, should they have predicted that they would lose the High Court judgment? When we discussed the matter previously, I did not take issue with the legal advice—I do not claim the advantage of foresight. Although it was not the main topic of our discussion, I want to be honest and admit that I cannot say, "I told you so." However, others can. Apart from the reason that I raised in the discussion on the timetable motion, it is worth briefly exploring others for why it seemed unlikely, in retrospect, that the Government could win. Some of those reasons may give them pause on appeal.
	Section 1(1)(a) of the 1990 Act states:
	"In this Act, except where otherwise stated"—
	I emphasise those last four words—
	"embryo means a live human embryo where fertilisation is complete".
	I rely on the work of Mr. Lee and Mr. Morgan in their book on the subject, but the words that I have emphasised make it clear that the Government could have provided for the inclusion in the statute of embryos created other than through IVF. However, they did not.
	To read the Act as providing for embryos created through cell nuclear replacement, we must take "embryo" to mean
	"a live human embryo where fertilisation is complete"
	unless the context requires otherwise. However, the Act does not provide for that. The Act uses the words "except where otherwise stated", but omits to "state otherwise." That makes it more difficult for a judge to give "embryo" a purposive rather than a literal interpretation. I fear that the Government may run into trouble on appeal. I hope that they are taking wider advice on whether the appeal is winnable than the counsel's opinion that they took originally.

Andrew Lansley: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, to complete the picture of the intentions in the 1990 Act, we must consider section 3(3)(d)? In terms of the available technology at the time, it was intended to prohibit the authorisation through licensing of cell nuclear replacement. The potential to develop an embryo in utero from a single cell was not contemplated then. That possibility is now being contemplated.

Evan Harris: The Government's representations to Mr. Justice Crane on section 3(3)(d) were successful. The applicant would not have won on that basis alone. However, section 3(3)(d) referred to what is described as Warnock cloning: the replacement of a nucleus of an embryo, not an egg, by another cell or nucleus. In 1990, the Dolly method was not in the minds of legislators or experts. Perhaps a few scientists had thought of it then. That is another reason why judges would find it difficult to interpret "embryo" purposively. However, we are getting into the nitty gritty, and it is inappropriate to go much further.
	I ask the Minister to address the appeal in her concluding remarks tonight. In an intervention, I tried to establish the position if the Government win the appeal but the Appeal Court judges give the applicant leave and even encouragement to appeal to the House of Lords. The Government claim that they have received similar encouragement from the judgment because they have been told that they have a strong case to take to the Court of Appeal.
	If the Government win the appeal, but the applicant has leave to appeal to the House of Lords, will they wait for the House of Lords to rule, or will they get on with introducing measures to implement the recommendations of the Donaldson report and, if there are any, of the Select Committee? Will they wait until the result of the appeal before clarifying the position because they may not, understandably, want to revert to the subject for a third time?
	If, however, the Government lose the appeal, but go to the House of Lords, will they decide to wait another six months or more before legislating to close the remainder of the loophole? There is probably a further stage under the Human Rights Act 1998 for the applicant, if not for the Government. We must be clear about that because many of us who have reservations about the Government's actions anticipate a more rapid conclusion to the matter.
	Another problem has been mentioned already. The Bill does not close the entire loophole that the judgment created. All the protections of the embryo that were lost for a cloned embryo have not been restored. They are: protection against exports and subsequent use that would be not be countenanced in this country; implantation in animals; and experimentation beyond 14 days. We must remember and analyse the reasons for the protections in the 1990 Act. The House deemed it appropriate to give embryos special consideration and a status worthy of protection. It is that class of embryos—cloned ones—that lost its protection as a result of the judgment. It is surprising, therefore, that the Government did not attempt, or consult on whether they could make an attempt, to introduce legislation not only to do what this Bill does within its limited ambit, which it does quite well, but to introduce further protections.
	As the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) said—the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) also touched on this in her speech, which was, once again, clear and helpful—it should have been conceivable to reverse the effect of the judgment by amending the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. In conversations with people who say that they know, I have been told that that is an extensive job, although it is hard to understand why when one reads the Act because the judgment is limited to one or two clauses. It would help hon. Members if the Minister placed in the Library a note describing the other sections and schedules of the Act that would have to be amended were that approach taken. Her argument is not convincing without seeing the extent of the change that would be necessary.
	The main problem is that because the Government have produced a limited measure, it looks as though they have introduced it to protect themselves from embarrassment by Italian mavericks rather than to protect embryos, which deserve protection because of their special status. Those of us who defended the Government's position on therapeutic cloning by recognising that the 14-day limit and the ban on the implantation into animals were important safeguards feel undermined by their decision to close only some of the loopholes.
	We also need to consider further legislation, which was dealt with to an extent by the hon. Member for Woodspring. Some of the recommendations of the Donaldson committee report may require primary legislation, specifically to beef up the consent provisions, which in part relate to the consent of the donor of the nucleus that provides the DNA in cloning technologies. We also have to consider what regulation and bodies, if any, are necessary to regulate stem cell lines derived from embryo research.
	The Donaldson committee also recommended banning the mixing of adult cells and live egg cells from animals, which is already being researched outside this country. Perhaps the Minister will consider doing something about that. In addition, the Government tried to get a private Member's Bill on to the statute book to deal with the Blood case at the very end of the last Session. They were unsuccessful, partly because there was not enough time to discuss it. The Government will have to tackle those problems.
	The Government's defence of their approach is that they wanted to introduce such a measure at an early stage, but it is clear that they are now responding outwith their preferred timetable. It would help hon. Members who have sympathy with the Government's position but concerns about procedure if they could be clearer about their plans for future legislation.
	I endorse what the hon. Member for Woodspring said: we need better scrutiny. He thought that an approach, such as that taken towards the Adoption and Children Bill, might help. I assume that he meant referring the legislation to a Special Standing Committee rather than letting it run out of time before a general election. It might be appropriate, even before the appeal is heard, to produce a draft Bill so that we can see what direction the Government are taking. Further legislation will be required and they should provide information on what changes we can expect, whether they win or lose the appeal.

Ian Gibson: A rather arrogant Cambridge molecular biologist, following the discovery of the DNA genetic code in 1960, said:
	"Give me DNA and I will make you a man".
	There is an element of that in the debate on cloning a human being. Attempting to achieve the birth of a person who, at least in theory, has the same genetic make-up as another person, dead or alive, is a reflection of an arrogant position.
	As I said in a recent Adjournment debate, it is an unsafe and unethical science. The technology that led to Dolly the sheep was unsuccessful in 277 previous cases. Imagine the trauma if that were to happen with humans. It is not only irreconcilable with the ethics of society as a whole, but with the ethics of good science and good medicine, to subject women and their children to those odds. The technology is immature and imprecise. In animals, it has led to lethargy, obesity, arthritic conditions, failed sexual prowess, miscarriages, abortions, still births and genetically defective offspring. It is a dangerous science.

Ian Taylor: I endorse what the hon. Gentleman says about the science being a dangerous and unsafe way of cloning for humans. The Advanced Cell Technology company's research of the last few days in the United States involved significantly high numbers of failures in early attempts at cloning. That has not been taken into account, with the press saying that we are about to be able to clone human beings.

Ian Gibson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention.
	I have no doubt that in the fullness of time somebody will want to carry out the process. As science moves on, ambitious people will want to do that. There is the hope of making a person who has the same genetics as somebody else. That is a person who might look, feel or even behave in exactly the same way as the person contributing the DNA.

Howard Stoate: Notwithstanding my hon. Friend's points about the science being immature and wholly untested, does he agree that even if the science were to improve and if we were able to implement it, it would still be the wrong thing to do?

Ian Gibson: I agree. I shall come on to ethics and morality, despite the scientific prowess of those who might be involved.
	I thought that I could hear the call from a football ground not far from the constituency of my hon. Friend the Minister: "There's only one David Beckham." If the technique that we are discussing were to arrive on the scene, there would be two David Beckhams. That might satisfy the current manager. I envisage many people imagining and talking about that.
	My view is that there will never be an exact replica. The environmental effects on gene activity and interaction are unknown entities. There are even differences between identical twins that are spottable. However, we are asked whether it can be done, and many reasons will be put forward to persuade others that the science can be achieved, not least by charlatans like the Italian professor, Antinori.
	Many people say that in 1990 the technology used to produce Dolly the sheep was not contemplated, but it had been tried and tested in animals in the 1960s. The science had been carried out with frogs at Indiana university and by John Gurdon at Oxford university. It had also been carried out with insects. In laboratories throughout the world people asked—of course they did, it is in the nature of science to do so—"Would it work in human beings?" That is what science is all about.
	Current Nobel prize winners in Britain, Paul Nurse and Tim Hunt, asked, "If we worked in a lower organism like yeast, would that have any implications for our knowledge of cancer?" No wonder they received a Nobel prize. That seeking after an understanding of genes and how they work led to discovery. As I have said, to ask such questions is the nature of science. The question whether it would be possible to use the science for humans was certainly asked in the 1960s. There are real lessons for legislators in our efforts to keep up with scientific progress.
	About a year ago, we debated here and elsewhere the science, the practicalities and the morality of stem cell research, using cell nuclear replacement, which is also called therapeutic cloning. The Opposition sought to confuse the issue by embroiling us in a nonsensical debate about adult stem cells or embryonic stem cells, but the Government achieved a vast majority in both Houses in favour of therapeutic cloning.
	The argument was that we needed to undertake both adult and embryonic stem cell research to bring about a deeper understanding of how to take forward the creation of tissues that might be helpful for various diseases. Therapeutic cloning, in my opinion, will never seek to create an individual human being. It seeks to create cells and tissues that might one day be used for the treatment of severe, chronic and degenerative diseases such as diabetes, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's. Everyone who accepts that there is a difference between people and embryos at the first stages of development—embryos are pin size, consisting of 16 cells—must accept that there is a moral difference between so-called therapeutic and reproductive cloning.
	I know that there are some who say that a very early embryo and a live birth should have the same moral status. This week, I had an altercation with a religious source on BBC Radio Scotland. It was in the middle of a game with a parliamentary football team at the Charlton stadium. I managed to extricate myself from the match to have a vicious argument. He argued that it has been shown scientifically that early embryos and people are morally the same. We know that a minority take that position in the House and other places but that has not been reflected in the laws of this country. My opponent's view contradicts our laws on contraception and abortion and the 1990 Act itself. The court action of the minority, which we have heard about today, is part of a plan to stop the cloning of human embryonic cells for whatever purpose, including promising research, and undermine embryo research in general; it is part of a continued attack on abortion rights. Ironically and sadly, the minority's court action has achieved the opposite of their aim. The cloned embryo is less protected now than it was before the decision of Mr. Justice Crane.
	The Government rightly reject the proclaimed aim of the so-called pro-life lobby to ban promising and tightly regulated research on embryos. They are appealing against the decision this month and I hope, if the appeal is successful—we should all back it, no matter where we stand on the issue—embryos created through cell nuclear replacement will be protected and regulated by the 1990 Act and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, just like embryos created through fertilisation involving sperm and egg. If the appeal fails, I am assured by Lord Hunt in another place and the Minister that the Government will not hesitate to follow up this narrow and precise Bill with a more comprehensive legislative response to the challenges created by the rapid advances in the science of embryo research. The 1990 Act will then be extended to embryos created by means other than fertilisation of an egg with a sperm cell.

Andrew Selous: If the hon. Gentleman does not believe that life begins at conception, at what point does he believes that it does begin?

Ian Gibson: I imagine that the hon. Gentleman and I will contemplate the matter and argue about it for the rest of our lives, as has happened between people throughout the country who can never agree. Indeed, as I shall discuss later, I chaired a meeting at which Chief Rabbi Sacks gave a talk; he said that there is no special boundary between the point when life starts and the point when it does not; it is impossible to define. I have great respect for that view. Dr. Sacks said that one could tell where Scotland and England began, but one could not do the same with life; there was no precise way of doing so—[Interruption.] I shall give way—[Laughter.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I advise the hon. Gentleman that it is never a good idea to tout for business.

Ian Gibson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I see that I have business.

Ann Widdecombe: I cannot resist an invitation from the hon. Gentleman which, in fact, I did not request. I was saying, perhaps improperly from a sedentary position, that if one says that there is no boundary nevertheless legislation requires precise definitions. We would start with conception; the hon. Gentleman would not. My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) was asking what the hon. Gentleman would regard as an acceptable starting point for law.

Ian Gibson: We are not talking about conception in the Bill but a new technique, which raises the question of the development of an embryo at a certain stage when stem cells are taken. Arguments about other issues have been made and the 1990 Act gives a firm definition of where life starts, as the right hon. Lady knows full well.
	There has been much speculation about the adequacy of the Bill to prevent the cloning of people. The debate has included some hair-raising stories and scenarios: we have heard about artificial wombs, human-animal hybrids, the export of cloned embryos and so on. Those stories are confusing, but I also get the impression that they are told with the intention of confusing the issue. We know clearly what the Government are trying to achieve and what scientists are capable of doing at this moment in time.
	The Government have declared that they are willing to bring the use of cloned embryos under the remit of the 1990 Act, as we all intended to do earlier this year. That will mean that all the issues of animal transfer, hybridisation and export will be regulated through the strict and transparent rule of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. If the Government win their appeal, that will become law; if they lose, they have said quite clearly that they will introduce further legislation. The 1990 Act establishes the HFEA as the ideal framework to react flexibly yet critically to any further developments in reproductive science or medicine. Believe me, there will be much in that field over the next few years. Just as a single plant cell can be taken and grown into a plant, one day it might be possible to take a single cell from an individual and grow another individual. That might be a possibility, but we are a long way from doing it, and many people would ask why anyone would want to do it, anyway.
	The Bill, rightly, does not address therapeutic cloning. Let us see what happens in the Court of Appeal, and after the House of Lords Select Committee has reported. Let us see whether further legislation is needed. There are interactions between the Bishop of Oxford and others of us. He is the Chair of the Committee in the other place, and we are discussing the issues. We will interact with Government when legislation is necessary, if it is necessary after the court case.
	I am sure that I speak for all hon. Members when I say that it is vital that cell nuclear replacement research goes on in order to contribute to treatments for many incurable diseases. The Bill would outlaw reproductive cloning—

John Pugh: I accept that the hon. Gentleman is making a moral distinction between therapeutic cloning and reproductive cloning, but does he accept that the technologies that will develop for therapeutic cloning will at any rate make more probable the prospect of effective reproductive cloning?

Ian Gibson: Intellectually, that would be the case, but if laws and regulations are in place and the public are opposed to reproductive cloning, we can ensure that we go along with what the public want, not with what some crazy scientist might want to do. Many scientific creations are possible, as we are finding, but they must be beneficial and for peaceful purposes. That is our aim, and the aim of legislation. Cloned individuals are unacceptable to the public, and are opposed also in Europe and the United States and by UNESCO.
	At the meeting with Jonathan Sacks the other week, to which I referred, he made an extremely pertinent point. He said that every child has the right to be an ultimate surprise to his or her parents. That is a very good way of putting it, and a strong argument against the cloning of people. That element of surprise, that uncontrollability—especially of children—implies a degree of respect for difference. By having children, we create something that we cannot always control. We must be mentally ready for children who turn out differently, different from us and from each other. That is what makes us human beings.
	Scientists must acknowledge that concern for human diversity, freedom and dignity leads to the principled rejection of reproductive cloning. If scientists do not clearly distance themselves from the likes of Antinori and his narcissistic and over-ambitious experiments, they risk aggravating a situation that is characterised by a public loss of trust in science and expertise.
	The clear ban on reproductive cloning proposed in the Bill can serve as an assurance to the public that there is a moral, ethical and practical difference between cell nuclear replacement research and cloning babies, and that while British scientists pursue promising research using very early embryos, they are not in the business of cloning people.
	With scientists in the US and Italy ready to exploit commercially the false hopes and dreams of individuals, it is necessary to act today. There will, of course, be ways of getting around any law—for example, by moving to other countries and by means of other illegalities—but we take precautions and amend Acts to ensure that that does not happen. Those who have studied industrial health and safety know that when the legal going gets tough in one country, the pharmaceutical industry and the asbestos industry, for example, move to another country. We legislate to make that difficult.
	We have a long way to go, not least by engaging with international institutions to achieve legal co-operation and better regulation of science. I am convinced that the Government are correct to make a start today and to be ready for further necessary legal action in the future. It will restore confidence in science and medicine among our scientific community, as well as among the public at large.

Edward Leigh: I beg to move,
	"That this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Human Reproductive Cloning Bill because it does not address the subject of therapeutic cloning; it does not prevent the creation of embryos by cell nuclear replacement; it does not define terms central to the Bill, such as 'fertilisation' and 'embryo'; and it fails to address the wider issues raised by the prospect of the creation of a cloned human being."
	It is our intention to press the reasoned amendment to a Division to enable the House to come to some sort of conclusion on these matters. We accept that we will be a minority in that Division, so it would have been a useful exercise for us, if we had had time, to move on to a detailed Committee stage and consider all the amendments that have been tabled. However, the wholly inadequate time that is available means that that will almost certainly not be possible. Therefore, the only opportunity that the House will have to express a view on these matters arises in relation to this very generalised reasoned amendment. That is a matter of grave concern. Of course, those important points have already been made in some detail during discussion of the programme motion, but they need to be stressed.

Anne Begg: Can I be absolutely clear about what the hon. Gentleman is saying through his reasoned amendment? Is he saying that those who support it will be voting against the outlawing of reproductive cloning?

Edward Leigh: The hon. Lady should consider what the reasoned amendment says. The intention is simple and relates to a point that has been made by several hon. Members on both sides of the House. These are very complex matters and it is almost certain that the House will have to return to them. Our basic point is that, from whatever side of the argument one speaks, and whether or not the Government win their court case, it is right and necessary to have primary legislation that covers all aspects of therapeutic and human cloning. That is not what the Government are providing. They are rushing through legislation in haste and repeating the mistakes that they made in December last year and January this year, when unamendable regulations were rushed through Parliament to extend the purposes of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. Last week, as we know, the regulations were judged to be defective. If anybody thinks that we should believe what Ministers tell us, we should remember what the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), told us at that stage. She said:
	"Let me make very clear the Government's position on this matter. Human reproductive cloning is illegal. It must stay illegal. Under these regulations it will stay illegal. These regulations have nothing to do with human reproductive cloning."—[Official Report, 19 December 2000; Vol. 360, c. 220.]
	The Opposition believe that we are now repeating those mistakes. The purpose of the reasoned amendment is to try to persuade the House and the Government to make a serious attempt at introducing primary legislation to deal with all these matters. Yet, rather than introduce such legislation to deal with experimental and live birth cloning and bring them within the purview of the 1990 Act, the Government intend to prohibit only the latter and to leave the former completely unregulated. Despite the decisiveness of the recent High Court judgment, and having been forewarned that experimental cloning is not currently subject to regulation by ourselves and others, they now seek to pursue their court case. As I said, it is almost certain that we will have to return to this subject at a later date in any event. How much better it would have been to have had the opportunity for mature reflection and careful consideration.

Howard Stoate: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that if the reasoned amendment were to persuade the House to refuse the Bill its Second Reading, it would give succour to those who want to continue with reproductive cloning, as it would allow them to exploit the current legal loophole?

Edward Leigh: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I do not know how much of the debate he has taken in. All hon. Members, on both sides of the House, have pretty well established that it is extremely unlikely that anybody will engage in human cloning this week, next week or next month. It is not going to happen and is not technically possible. The cells, facilities and all the rest of it could not be found. The fact is that there is time to consider these matters seriously. All hon. Members are opposed to human cloning. That is not what the debate is about. Everybody here should be seeking to frame legislation to ensure that various problems are addressed. The Minister has sought to wave those problems away, but they are serious.

William Cash: Does my hon. Friend agree that the answer that I received earlier from the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) illustrated the real problem that we face and that my hon. Friend is so expertly explaining now? It is absolutely clear that in the absence of a full-blown Select Committee to investigate all the questions that are arising, report to the House and produce proper definitions, it will be impossible for the Government to introduce legislation. Indeed, the Minister's comments made it clear that she was unable to give a clear answer on the legal definitions. Would it not have been a good idea to have placed in the Library of the House the legal opinion that was produced?

Edward Leigh: Why cannot we just try to deal with these difficult matters, which give rise to serious moral, ethical and medical concerns? We do not have to deal with them in this confrontational way. We could deal with them through proper pre-legislative scrutiny, and by appointing a Select Committee and calling expert witnesses before us. There is time to do that. It is accepted on both sides of the House that we are going to have to return to the subject anyway, whatever the result of the court case. Given the debacle of the debate on the regulations, and of the Government losing their court case, and given that the Government have already had their fingers burned in this matter, would it not have been better for them to proceed in the way that I am suggesting?

Ian Taylor: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is clear that no one in the House is advocating human reproductive cloning? That is the will of the House. If the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 had to come back to the House, would he respect the fact that the House had previously endorsed the purposes of the amendments that were introduced to allow cell nuclear replacement?

Edward Leigh: Of course I respect the will of the House. Some of us are opposed to therapeutic cloning, but we respect the will of the House and we know that we are in a minority on that issue. All that we are trying to do now is to get legislation that works and closes all the loopholes, which is surely a perfectly sensible thing for Members of Parliament to do. If I am given a moment, I shall try to outline some of those loopholes, but before I do so I had better give way.

Glenda Jackson: Surely the hon. Gentleman is arguing for the abolition of judicial review, if what he desires is legislation on which, if any group were to test it in court, a judge would automatically find for the Government. I find that ironic, given that hon. Members on both sides of the House have argued, in relation to the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill, that the issue of judicial review is vital to our basic civil liberties and human rights.

Edward Leigh: Of course, we all accept that judges have the right to interpret legislation. The problem with the way in which the Government addressed this matter through unamendable regulation is that the provisions were completely unenforceable. The problem is that it might not just be a question of a judge dealing with an aspect of this legislation in six months or a year's time; a judge might completely sink it, or ensure that it has no effect whatsoever in a whole area of research. We should be concerned about that.
	I shall attempt briefly to deal with some of these problems, because, although they have been mentioned by the Minister, they have been dismissed with a wave of the hand. The Bill leaves the cloning of human embryos completely unregulated. Of course it will prevent implantation; we know that. It is a short Bill, and that is quite clear.

Anne Begg: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Edward Leigh: I would like to try to develop my argument, and the hon. Lady has already intervened.
	People can create—or attempt to create—cloned embryos, experiment on them and keep them for as long as they like. They Government claim that they will appeal against the judgment, but for the time being, the law is as Mr. Justice Crane declared it to be. The fact that the Bill deals with implantation does not address the central problem that it leaves the cloning of human embryos completely unregulated.
	Other points were mentioned, and the Minister responded that they could be returned to if the court case were lost. That is not good enough. We cannot have hypothetical situations when we are dealing with primary legislation. The fact is that cloned embryos can be implanted into animals. The Bill prohibits only the placing of embryos into women. This is not some kind of esoteric matter that nobody has thought of and might never happen. It goes to the heart of the Bill.
	In the early days of IVF, Professor Robert Edwards, the creator of the first test-tube baby, conducted experiments implanting human embryos into rabbits and sheep. As a result of that, Parliament placed a ban on placing fertilised embryos into animals. That ban does not extend to cloned embryos. This is a serious point, and if we are going to have sensible legislation to deal with the matter, we should address it.
	Professor Winston in the other place claimed that embryos could be implanted in men. The Bill would not prevent it, but the Government wave that aside, saying that it is not likely to happen and that we can return to it, but we should at least discuss the matter, if we have time to debate the Bill in Committee. The point has been made several times that cloned embryos could be exported for implantation. The Bill would not prohibit that. A clone could easily be created in the UK, then exported for implantation. The Bill would not prevent that. Again, a gaping loophole could defeat the purposes of the Bill.
	Clones could be kept alive in artificial wombs. That is known as ectogenesis and the 14-day limit imposed by Parliament was meant to prevent it.

Anne Begg: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Edward Leigh: I must make progress, but I shall give way to the hon. Lady, as I know she is anxious to get in. She has a particular interest in the Bill.
	Last year in Japan, researchers managed to gestate goat embryos for several months in artificial wombs. That is not an entirely esoteric point; it is happening in the research world. Clones could be kept alive in artificial wombs. Again, the Bill is silent, as it is on all those matters, because the Government think that they must produce as simple a Bill as possible, get it through the House in a day and draw it as tightly as possible so that it cannot be amended. That makes for a circular argument, which is fine for those in charge of the Government timetable, but altogether more worrying for people who work in this field and want serious legislation covering all those points.
	Allowing the creation of cloned embryos will pave the way for live-birth cloning. Once cloned embryos are created, it is inevitable that, sooner or later, they will be implanted in a woman, especially if no restrictions are put on creating or storing cloned embryos. A survey of all the leading IVF practitioners was conducted by The Independent, and the majority recognised that live-birth cloning is inevitable once the creation of cloned embryos is allowed. The Government's failure to control the creation and storage of cloned embryos is extremely irresponsible and the ban on implantation, which is the centrepiece of the Bill, will be impossible to police.
	Ministers often come to the House with such legislation, assuming that it will be policed properly, but let us study it for a moment. In the laboratory, there is no effective way to distinguish between cloned and normally fertilised embryos. As the creation of cloned embryos is unregulated, clinics could store cloned embryos next to fertilised ones and no one could tell the difference, but the Government say, "Don't worry. Legislation will cure the problem." I doubt it.
	Once a clone has been implanted, no one will be able to tell the difference. Even after birth, it will be possible to establish that a clone has been created only if it is known whose genetic material was used to create the clone and if it were possible to force that person and the clone to undergo genetic testing. That will not happen, so let us discuss a case that did happen.
	Late last year, a week after the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority inspected a clinic in Basingstoke, approving its facilities and procedures, it was discovered that dozens of embryos had been mixed up or gone missing. As many as 80 women had the wrong embryos implanted. Criminal prosecutions are occurring. In the early 1990s, the first case of the wrong embryos being implanted was reported. Two patients had their embryos mixed up. By the HFEA's own admission, there are huge errors recorded in the collection of basic data.
	My point is that the Bill is impossible to police and this is vital: the failure to define the terms "fertilisation" and "embryo" leaves it full of loopholes. We have tabled amendments to define those terms and, if we have a debate in Committee, we would like to discuss them. Neither term is defined, yet that was precisely the problem with the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 and it is why were are having the debate today. It is also one reason for the court case being brought and for the ProLife Alliance winning its judicial review.
	One cannot say, "We don't agree with the ProLife Alliance. It caused the problem." Surely those drafting legislation and bringing it to the House must assume that it is reasonably watertight. In this Bill—a very short Bill, which deals with a huge, complex, difficult area—no attempt has been made to define its basis. That is extraordinary. Those who think—if anyone holds such a view—that lawyers will not have a field day are fooling themselves.
	Members who imagine that this is just my opinion should bear in mind what Lord Winston said in the other place. I shall paraphrase: Lord Winston said that fertilisation was impossible to define, and could encompass a variety of techniques.
	Parthenogenesis is one of the cloning procedures undertaken by Mike West of Advanced Cell Technology. He was featured in the newspapers earlier this week, having cloned the world's first embryonic human being—or so he claimed.
	The Bill would not prevent the implanting of cloned embryos created by techniques described as fertilisation. That was Lord Winston's point. It should be borne in mind that this is a criminal Bill, in that those who breach its provisions could be sent to prison for a long time. If a case is brought, the benefit of the doubt will lie with the defendant. If the defendant demonstrates that his cloning technique could be described as fertilisation in Lord Winston's terms, he will be able to avoid criminal sanctions.
	I should have thought that those wishing to avoid the possibility of defendants driving a coach and horses through their legislation, which would defeat the whole object of that legislation, would want to define their terms. Surely that would be reasonably sensible. No attempt has been made to define the terms, however, because the Government's central and overriding aim is to enact some sort of legislation, however imprecise and ineffective it may be. That is very dangerous. It might result in legislation that could not be enforced, and could not make a successful prosecution possible.
	It has been suggested that the Bill may prevent the use of certain established fertility techniques. One is intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection—ICSI. I shall not go into details, but concerns have been raised about it. Furthermore, the Bill fails to define the term "embryo". I have considered the definition of "fertilisation", but the definition of "embryo" is particularly important, because we are seeking to base a whole body of legislation on it. The definition of a one-celled product has been discussed. Mr. Justice Crane agreed with the Government on that, stating that if he had found in their favour a one-celled clone would still not be an embryo. Thus the Bill does not prevent the placing of a one-celled clone in a woman. The Minister brushed that aside, but I think that we should deal with it.
	The HFEA has itself subscribed to the view that, until 14 days have elapsed, the product of fertilisation is not an embryo but, rather, a pre-embryo. It is possible, therefore, that the Bill does not prevent the placing in a woman of what some term a pre-embryo. I should have thought that that was an important point—and an interesting loophole.
	Just as the Bill makes no attempt to define when the embryo stage begins, it makes no attempt to define when it ends. At some point in the embryo's development it becomes a foetus, but neither the Bill nor the 1990 Act identifies that point. That is a serious lacuna in the Bill.
	Is a totipotent embryonic stem cell an embryo? If so, is it covered by the Bill? Fully grown mice and cows have been developed from mouse and cow embryonic stem cells—but, again, the Bill is silent on the matter.
	Even if the Government win their appeal, serious problems may arise in all the areas that I have mentioned. We need to frame legislation so that it can cover all those problems, and enable us to fulfil the declared wish of the House to ban human cloning in any shape or form. We need to close all the loopholes, effectively and sensibly. The Bill does not do that, and I therefore urge the House to accept the amendment.

Jim Dobbin: I did not speak to the programme motion, but I voted on it, and my feelings were recorded in that vote. As most hon. Members know, I speak from a pro-life stance. However, as I am also diabetic, a bit of my mind and perhaps the whole of my body want to see medical advances for the right reasons, and for some very personal reasons.
	This is an extremely important Bill; Bills do not come any higher on the ethical, moral or scientific scale for the whole of humanity. However, like many hon. Members, I feel that the Bill has been presented with tremendous haste and without the detailed consideration that it merits. I have listened very carefully to the Minister's comments, and I appreciate that she realises that some loopholes require further thought and need to be closed for the purposes of future regulation.
	I shall speak specifically to fertilisation, which is dealt with in the reasoned amendment. Last January, the House debated regulations to extend the purposes in the 1990 Act for which there may be experimentation on human embryos. Many hon. Members expressed concern that there was not enough time to consider the issues fully. The High Court's 15 November judgment has proved that those hon. Members were right to voice their concerns. Mr. Justice Crane has ruled that human embryos created by a cell nuclear replacement technique involving the insertion of the nucleus of a human somatic cell into an unfertilised egg that has had its nucleus removed are not covered within the meaning of section 1 of the 1990 Act. I think that all hon. Members in the Chamber have accepted that.
	Therefore, such embryos are not covered by the regulations that were pushed through so urgently in January and, consequently, all forms of human cloning, both live birth and experimental, are not illegal. The Bill seeks to prohibit live-birth cloning in primary legislation and I welcome that move. However, the prohibition does not cover research and experimentation on cloned human embryos or outlaw the creation or keeping of cloned human embryos. I am sure that hon. Members did not foresee that outcome when they voted for the regulations in January.
	In the debate on the regulations, the Under–Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), said:
	"I understand that many hon. Members will not have concentrated on the detail of the issues until the vote was looming because we are all extremely busy."—[Official Report, 19 December 2000; Vol. 360, c. 212.]
	I think that that would have been the situation whenever the matter was considered because of the complexity of the issues, by which many hon. Members may feel taken aback. I am sure that Ministers and other hon. Members are anxious to avoid anything like that happening again by getting it right this time, if at all possible. That is why I want the issues to be addressed today.
	Time to study complex issues and explore the fine detail of legislation is vital if the Government are to avoid further embarrassment. Badly drafted legislation is the result of a lack of scrutiny and must be avoided. Unfortunately, now there is even less time to consider the legislation. As hon. Members have said, the Bill is criminal law. In a court of law, it is important that the terminology is clear. If it is not, it could lead to prolonged argument and more unwelcome legal challenges. It is therefore important that, in the short time available, we define precisely the terms that are being used. Definitions are an essential part of ensuring that the Bill does not meet the same fate as the January 2001 regulations.
	A few days ago, in a debate in the other place, Lord Winston was unable to give a single definition of fertilisation. He suggested that different biologists would have different definitions and gave several examples. They included:
	"the penetration of the outer coat of the egg, the zonapellucida, with a sperm; . . . the penetration of the ooplasm; . . . the formation of a pronucleus inside the egg; . . . the beginning of cell division.—-[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 November 2001; Vol. 629, c. 118W.]
	He also mentioned parthenogenesis.
	I believe that that choice of definitions can lead only to total confusion. Parthenogenesis is the technique that was used by Mike West, who made the headlines this week for having cloned the world's first embryonic human being. The Bill will not prevent the implanting of cloned embryos created by such techniques, which are described as fertilisation by Lord Winston. It is vital that terms such as "fertilisation", which is used in the Bill, are given a clear and unequivocal explanation. One of the reasons why the ProLife Alliance won its judicial review was that neither "fertilisation" nor "embryo"—as has already been mentioned—were defined in the 1990 Act. I ask, therefore, that the meaning of "fertilisation" in the context of the Bill be made clear and I hope that the Minister addresses that point when she responds. The purpose of the Bill should be to protect fertilisation and human eggs.
	I will support the Bill, because it is important that we send the right message to the public—that we oppose reproductive cloning.

Ann Widdecombe: I do not intend to detain the House for long, because I know that many hon. Members wish to contribute, but I would like the Minister to respond to two specific points. The burden of the Minister's case was, "Look, until we know whether we have won the appeal, we do not know what measures will be necessary." However, even if the Government win their appeal, two areas will remain completely unregulated according to their own lawyers. I hope that by raising the issues at this point in the debate, the Minister's brain will be able to catch up with her even if she cannot give me immediate answers. [Interruption.] That is not patronising, because I have sat on the Front Bench and have often been grateful for my brain catching up with me. It does not have far to travel and it can be done.
	The first issue concerns the 14-day limit. The Government's lawyers conceded in court that even if they won their appeal, it would not rectify an anomaly in respect of that limit. Section 3(4) of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 establishes that time begins running from the date when the sperm and eggs are mixed. Cloning, however, does not involve the mixing of sperm and eggs and therefore time would not start to run. It would therefore be impossible to calculate any limit, including—obviously—the 14-day limit. That point was conceded by the Government's lawyers in court and I would like a specific comment on that point from the Minister.
	The second remaining anomaly that was accepted by the Government's lawyers concerns the consent provisions in the 1990 Act. Consent is required of people when their genetic material is being used. Because of the mechanism of cloning, consent would not be required. According to the Government's interpretation of the 1990 Act, not mine, cloned embryos will not require anybody's consent to be created, stored, experimented on or killed—or disposed of, as the Government might wish to put it. That is because under the 1990 Act, consent for the creation, storage or use of embryos is obtainable only from the donors of the sperm and egg that contain the resulting embryo's genetic material. Before anything is done to a fertilised embryo, full consent is required from the donors of the genetic material. In cloning, however, sperm and eggs are not used to provide the genetic material for the embryo. The genetic material comes from a cell. Thus no consent is required and no consent can be insisted upon. That point was also conceded by the Government's lawyers.
	We have not just dreamed up those problems. There are probably other anomalies as well, stemming from some of the points raised by my hon. Friends. That is why we are so concerned about the way in which the Bill is being rushed through.
	I hope that all other hon. Members share my opinion that cloning should never be used for reproductive purposes. I do not dissent from the aim of the Bill, but believe that the procedure being employed today will create an even bigger mess than the one that we have on our hands now.
	I know that it is futile to ask the Minister to withdraw the Bill and reconsider the matter, but we face a very serious muddle. I should be grateful if the Minister would respond specifically to my questions.

John Pugh: If the Minister were generous enough to offer a Select Committee investigation into the matter, or a fuller debate, would those who have tabled the amendment to deny giving the Bill a Second Reading withdraw their opposition to a ban on reproductive cloning now? Alternatively, given that it may take a long time to sort out the legal, semantic and definitional problems involved, will they remain opposed to a ban on reproductive cloning?

Ann Widdecombe: Our position is clear. We have never been opposed to a Bill banning reproductive cloning, but we have serious and grave reservations about this Bill. Our problem is not with the aim of the Bill. Of course we want to abolish reproductive cloning. Many Conservative Members also want to abolish therapeutic cloning, but that is a separate debate. We are happy to agree that reproductive cloning should be abolished—but not by means of this Bill, in so short a time, when there is so much muddle and inadequacy.
	The hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) asked whether I would withdraw my opposition in certain circumstances, but my opposition is to this Bill, not to its general—but wholly unrealised—aim.

John Pugh: If the Minister were to offer a Select Committee examination of the matter and a fuller debate, would the right hon. Lady vote today for the ban on reproductive cloning?

Ann Widdecombe: If the Minister offered a speedy further investigation into the matter that would allow all relevant matters to be considered, it would strengthen her hand but it would not make me any happier with this Bill. When the House debates a Bill, it is not merely debating the general principles involved. Such principles can be shared by hon. Members of all parties, but today I am opposing the Bill specifically, if not exclusively, for the two reasons that I have set out.

Anne Campbell: I, too, shall be brief, so that other hon. Members can contribute to the debate.
	I congratulate the Government on this short and simple Bill, and believe that there is adequate time today to discuss its two clauses. In an intervention, I said that I would not participate in the programme motion debate because I felt that the House's time should be devoted to the Bill.
	I recall that a few months ago Parliament had three full debates on therapeutic cloning. Both Houses have voted overwhelmingly in favour of it, but it is clear that many hon. Members want to reopen the debate. I regret that. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg), who said that we should concentrate on the provisions of the Bill, not on those matters that some hon. Members would like to revisit and reopen.
	On occasions such as this, I would normally receive much correspondence on the subject being debated. That is not the case this time, although I have received one e-mail from a constituent. She makes the point that the Bill will not provide an adequate safeguard against reproductive cloning, and that it will be difficult or impossible to enforce. She asks, too, who would be able to tell the difference between a cloned human embryo and an embryo created by in vitro fertilisation. The same point was made earlier by the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh).
	I do not know the right way to deal effectively with that difficulty. All I know is that I am wearing a watch and it would be difficult to tell whether it was stolen or bought legitimately, but that does not fail to make legislation effective in saying that stealing watches is illegal. The same point applies to this legislation. Moreover, anybody who succeeds in producing a cloned human being is hardly likely to be quiet about it. A person would not necessarily want to hide that, so the publicity would lead to the culprits.
	It is not surprising that people feel strongly about this issue. It is probably one of the most fundamental issues that we ever discuss. Therefore, I can understand people who feel strongly and emotionally about it.
	Therapeutic cloning offers the possibility of a cure to some nasty, degenerative inherited diseases that blight the lives of many. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South makes a powerful case because of her own condition. Clearly, if the Government fail to win their appeal on this issue, there will have to be further consideration of the legislation to cover the issues that are not addressed in this short Bill. I welcome the Minister's reassurances on that. Embryos created by cell nuclear replacement will be unregulated in that case and we may need to bring back to the House a number of other issues to make sure that they are fully debated.
	Even if the Government win their case, technology moves on. In a few months' time, a year's time or perhaps a few years' time there will be techniques that we have not thought or dreamt of today, which may make this legislation inapplicable. In that case, it will be necessary for us to reopen the debate. I can foresee that it will be necessary over the next few years repeatedly to reopen this debate because of advances in technology and science.

Howard Stoate: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Surely the point of the debate is that we need to change the law as circumstances change. Therefore, short Bills such as this can be extremely effective in sending out a message about the will of Parliament in a short and positive fashion, without the need for prolonged debate. Science will change anyway in the fullness of time.

Anne Campbell: My hon. Friend makes a valuable point, with which I wholly agree.
	I said that my speech would be brief. I finish by saying that I intend to use my free vote tonight to support the Government in this legislation.

Robert Key: I feel that I have been making the same sort of speech for 30 years, but in this Chamber for 18. A number of my hon. Friends on both sides of the argument have been making similar speeches, but of course they are never the same because legislation and science move on, so we must move on too.
	I oppose human reproductive cloning and always have. I support cell nuclear replacement. The good that it can bring is enormous and we should not ignore it. I support scientific research—perhaps not surprisingly, as my wife is a science teacher, my sister a doctor and my daughter a veterinary surgeon. I also represent some thousands of world-class scientists at the Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research and the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, both at Porton Down.
	I also support science and scientific research precisely because I am a Christian. Christians are united in their repugnance at the concept of embryo selection, which was a trait of Nazism. Beyond that, however, we often find that as Christians we have widely different interpretations and understandings of the message of Christianity. We find ourselves passionately opposed to one another as Christians. It needs to be pointed out that there is no single Christian view on this issue—no one has a monopoly of virtue. Many good Christians work in controversial medical research and on the difficult frontier areas of science.
	I have often thought about the profligacy of nature. About 10 years ago, in the run-up to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, I consulted my then bishop, John Baker, on that question. He said:
	"When nature itself spontaneously aborts a good many embryos in these very early stages of life, it is hard to feel that to do so deliberately for good reason is contrary to God's own mind so far as that is revealed in his created order."
	That is a frightfully important point, with which some of us can certainly agree, although other Christians will disagree with it.
	I shall vote against the amendment that would outlaw cell nuclear replacement. I understand the purpose of the amendment: my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) argued it convincingly—as he always has. He has done so for 18 years and will continue to do so. One reason that I shall vote against it is that I do not want to be rushed. It is a great irony that he has argued that the Government rush everything, yet he now expects me to rush to his defence in a rushed little amendment that will completely reverse the provisions introduced during the past decade. Well, I shall not rush: I shall wait for the Lords Select Committee.
	Lord Winston seems to have become a sort of demon in this debate, but he made an important, constructive and consistent point that is worth repeating. He said that he wanted to make
	"what might be termed a religious point. I know that noble Lords may quarrel with this, but it is my view that science—knowledge—does not have a moral dimension. If we get involved with nuclear physics, we may end up inventing an atom bomb. Equally, most of us in this Chamber will have had an X-ray at some time which has been vital to our health. On the whole, we cannot know before such knowledge is derived whether it will be used for good or for ill. As human beings we have free will. We eat from the tree of knowledge; it is up to us not only to use knowledge, but also to use discernment and wisdom."
	That seems to me to be the comment of someone of great wisdom, who actually has a licence under the 1990 Act.
	Science is all about knowledge; what matters is what we do with it. In the case of Lord Winston, what we do with it has been assumed to be rather unfortunate.
	Lord Winston also said:
	"I agree with every noble Lord who has spoken today that reproductive cloning is wrong. It is clearly wrong at the moment for two obvious reasons. First, it treats a human being like a commodity, which is dangerous and unacceptable. Secondly, at the present time it carries very severe risks to the individual who is cloned. That may not always be so, but certainly it is at the moment."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 November 2001; Vol. 629, c. 23-25.]
	I agree with that.
	It is because I am a Christian that I believe that we should not try to ban the pursuit of science or of knowledge, both of which I regard as God given. We do not know nearly enough about cells—how they differentiate or how they regenerate—and much good will come of that type of research.
	Many of us have visited constituents who are members of the Parkinson's Disease Society or who belong to groups such as those for the support of multiple sclerosis sufferers. I met such a group a week ago: young people only 30 or 40 years old who face a degenerative, terminal illness. What brave and courageous people they are. If we can do anything that will help them, we should do so. For me, that is a Christian obligation.
	I have been consistent about this subject for many, many years. I believe that we should all show the greatest regard for the sanctity of human life, but if Parliament refuses to allow the type of research that we are discussing we shall be deliberately turning away from people who need help—and who can be helped. That is what makes those of us who support that scientific research pro-life. We are pro-life. I will not have that term hijacked by a pressure group—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) laughs, but if only he understood what damage has been done to his own cause over the years by suggesting that those who do not agree with a particular point of view are somehow anti-life. That will rebound on them, I fear.
	Before I finish, I want to make a further point. We will return to this issue. I said in 1990 that we would return to it, and we did. I said last January that we would do so, and we will. Whatever happens, we will return to the issue because science moves on, and only the representatives of the people in Parliament should determine the boundaries within which we allow scientists to operate.
	When we next consider the issue in serious primary legislation, I hope that we shall conduct pre-legislative scrutiny. I have twice served on Committees considering armed forces Bills—the only sort of Bills that follow that procedure—which is very instructive because it empowers many people outside Parliament who have something to say and allows our prejudices to be exposed to the real world. It also allows a huge amount of common sense into the debate, and I hope that common sense will prevail tonight.

Lynne Jones: As I intimated earlier, I support the Bill, but I query the need for emergency legislation. There was no urgent need to introduce the Bill today. In response to the Donaldson report last August, the Government signalled their intention to make explicit what they thought was implicit in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990—that human cloning for reproductive purposes was banned.
	It is right that the Government should make that explicit, not least because of what Baroness Warnock described in the other place as the slippery slope argument. The fact remains, however, that the Government's view last year was that the 1990 Act extended to embryos created by cell nuclear replacement. That has proved not to be the case, and I am worried that we are rushing our consideration of the Bill, which I support, when more urgent matters are not being addressed, such as the fact that the use of embryos created by methods other than fertilisation is now completely unregulated.
	The Government's view is that they will continue with their appeal against the decision in the test case, but even if they win their appeal—it is not certain that they will—there would still be nothing to stop someone else challenging the law if new scientific developments occurred. It would have been much better if the Government had accepted the recommendations—made by the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee as long ago as March 1997, and reiterated in 1998, after this Government had come to power—that the definition of the word "embryo" should be amended to include any method that resulted in an embryo that was viable and likely to develop into a human being.
	The Government did not do that, but I still feel that that matter needs to be addressed urgently. If we pass this Bill today, as I am sure we shall because everyone agrees with it—our constituents are not likely to lobby us to vote against banning human reproductive cloning—I shall still be disappointed because those more important issues will remain unregulated, although they are more relevant today in the light of recent developments. That could result in future challenges even if the Government win their case. That is a big concern and, in that sense, I agree with those Conservative Members who said that some issues were unregulated. Those issues cause our constituents great concern.

Ian Taylor: Science has a nasty habit of catching us out unawares. Even Ministers are caught unawares.
	I was the Minister responsible for science at the time of the cloning of Dolly the sheep. Indeed, some thought that I was a clone of Dolly the sheep; I leave that for others to judge. It was clear that science had taken a huge leap forward, but it was not the leap that the press declared it to be. One of the difficulties in the debate is that hype and sensationalism take us away from a proper understanding of the scientific implications.
	We have been aware of cloning since time began in the sense that twins are cloned. In nature, things get cloned and we mix genetics each time that we crossbreed animals. Nevertheless, science is sometimes sensationalised in the press as though it were immediately possible to move from one step to another. That is one of the problems that the House will always face, but I hope that the Government have not introduced the Bill simply because of the more sensationalist comments in the press but rather to lay the foundations for clarity.
	Although there will be scientific advances, Parliament should make it clear that we do not wish some things to happen. One such thing is human reproductive cloning and, in particular, the implantation of a cell into a woman. If that is the Bill's purpose, I am happy to support it. However, many other questions are left open and we shall have to return to them.
	The hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) mentioned the number of cells that had to fail so that Dolly could eventually be cloned. This week's New Scientist says that creating the embryos that ACT—Advanced Cell Technology—was working on involved the use of 71 eggs donated by seven volunteers and three failed rounds of experiments before the first cloned embryo was generated. Even the fourth so-called successful round of experiments was far from efficient. None of the few cells that were produced reached anywhere near blastocyst stage—a mass of about 100 cells.
	Scientifically interesting though it was, this week's announcement does not take us anywhere near the possibility of using even stem cells for research purposes let alone for human cloning. I hope that we can pause for thought and consider what is happening in science, so that we can try to understand the implications.
	I will not support the reasoned amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh). Although he did not agree with the concept when I challenged him, he appears to want to return to the period before we amended the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 to allow cell nuclear replacement by extending the Act to deal with what are, by and large, degenerative diseases. Cell nuclear replacement may also have a role to play in other diseases, such as AIDS, but I shall leave that to the scientists to explain. I profoundly hope that the ambition to try to stop cell nuclear replacement is not taken any further by the House.

William Cash: As my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) said, he, my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor), other hon. Members and I have been engaged in such debates for 18 years. Does my hon. Friend agree that a case exists for re-evaluating the subject, which is being done and will, we hope, produce new legislation, precisely because we were repeatedly told that human reproductive cloning was impossible? The Government therefore produced a Bill in a specific form at a given time. They got it wrong, and because human cloning is now a real possibility, we face these difficulties.

Ian Taylor: I cannot go back 18 years, but I remember February 1997. It was clear that we were moving towards science that was ultimately capable of human cloning. The process has been continued by ACT's results in the United States. We are a long way from it, and we want to find legislative methods of preventing human cloning. However, for humane reasons, we do not want to stop research into methods that, through the use of stem cells from embryos, can improve the well-being of people who suffer from degenerative diseases. I hope that we will ultimately be able to use stem cells from adults. My hon. Friend made that point earlier. I refer him to my article in The Parliamentary Monitor in October 2000. It is a fount of wisdom on the subject.

Glenda Jackson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that in the most recent debates in the House, Ministers did not claim that it was impossible to clone a human being but that it was illegal?

Ian Taylor: It is illegal, and thank goodness for that. We want the Bill to clarify that it is illegal. I am aware of the complexity of the issue. For example, the Bill would not make it illegal to produce cells as happened with ACT this week in the United States. The Bill makes implantation in a woman illegal. There is no risk of implantation because the scientists did not get beyond the first few stages. I believe that there were six small cells, and their life was fleeting. We are a long way from the reality, but the process exists.

Howard Stoate: The hon. Gentleman said that cloning was illegal, but the court judgment shows that the law is unclear and that it is not illegal. That is why we are here tonight.

Ian Taylor: It was a slip of the tense of the verb. I meant to say that the Bill, which I support, would make it illegal. We believed that previous legislation had achieved that. The challenge by the ProLife Alliance has created confusion. I do not say that there should not be judicial challenges, but the ProLife Alliance cannot avoid responsibility for having created great confusion. I hope that it supports the Bill because it will do at least one more thing to reduce the uncertainty about human reproductive cloning.

Ann Widdecombe: Supporting the Bill will leave many anomalies, which were conceded by Government lawyers in court as a result of the judgment. The pro-life argument would be that we could fulfil the responsibilities that arise from the judgment by introducing a proper Bill that takes account of them. That is what we want, but we have not got it.

Ian Taylor: I am delighted that my right hon. Friend and I are at one in one sense. Both of us believe that we need a fuller debate about some aspects. However, I do not want that debate to result in closing down actions for which we believed that we had already given permission. We believed that we had given permission for regulated cell nuclear replacement under the 1990 Act, as amended. I do not have a problem with preventing human reproductive cloning that involves the implantation of a cell in a woman. I also accept that other provisions could have been included in the Bill, and I believe that the Minister would accept that.
	When we know the judgment of the court, we are likely to return to the matter. I agree with my right hon. Friend that we will need to reconsider the definition of fertilisation. We may need to look at it in the context of the embryo. We will certainly need to understand many of the other issues, especially in the light of the guidance that we will receive from the House of Lords Select Committee on Stem Cell Research when it reports.
	As others want to speak, I conclude by saying that it is humane to attempt to help people who have diseases that cannot be treated by other means by encouraging scientific research. Scientists can make remarkable progress. Lord Winston may be right about there being no moral judgment in science; it is for us to make and delimit such judgment. I want to delimit what we find obnoxious and unacceptable. I most emphatically do not wish to delimit research that leads to progress that helps human beings.
	The challenge is to make that distinction. I hope that by voting in favour of Second Reading I make my views clear, but I am sure that eventually we will have to protect and extend the areas of research that we allow.

Desmond Turner: The hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor) is right. In fact, he did well for a former Science Minister. The hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) was equally sensible in recognising that we cannot set legislation in stone and assume that it will deal with the advance in science for generations to come, because science moves too fast and is too unpredictable. We should not worry about whether the Bill is the be-all and end-all of legislation on this subject. I do not think that the Minister will say that it is.
	Hon. Members on both sides of the House recognise that the Bill is a stop-gap measure. None the less, it is essential. The court judgment places in grave doubt the legal position of human reproductive cloning. It is not possible to say that it is definitely illegal, so it must be clearly stated that it is illegal. I think that we all agree on that. It is essential to satisfy the universal opinion, whether we represent the pro-life, the scientific or the medical view, that human reproductive cloning is unacceptable for a raft of reasons that I do not need to mention because we are all in agreement.
	It is equally essential to make that point clear for the purposes of therapeutic cloning. We are fortunate that we have established a sensible regulatory regime for work on embryos. Medical scientists in this country know the boundaries. They know what they can and cannot do and that as long as they work within them, they are safe from attack. That is not the case in the rest of Europe where medical scientists feel unsafe and are disinclined to work in the field.
	This country benefits from taking a lead in such research. Other countries, such as Germany and Italy, cannot benefit because their medical scientists do not feel safe. At the same time, those countries are exposed in a way that we are not to unscrupulous scientists, such as our Italian friend who announced his determined intention to clone a human being. The authorities cannot stop him in Italy, but he will not be able to do it here, and that is vital.
	If the judgment is not reversed, we will have to introduce fresh legislation to regulate the use of embryos produced by nuclear transfer. That is obvious and essential, and we should not be ashamed of it. We are here to make laws and should accept it as part of our job.
	The amendment of the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) is unfortunately somewhat mischievous. It seems that the intention behind it is to move the argument back to the stage before we last debated these matters, when we regularised the human therapeutic cloning situation. If we follow that line of reasoning and accept the amendment, we will be in a dangerous situation. I hope that it will not be supported because it is designed to take us backwards.
	I support the Bill. I do not think that it closes all the possible loopholes; I doubt whether the Minister thinks that it does. For instance, there is the theoretical possibility that a human embryo produced by nuclear transfer—that is a cloned embryo—could be exported and then transplanted into somebody from this country who has gone abroad for the purpose. We all know that women from Ireland who want an abortion have to come here because the practice is illegal there. Theoretically, that could happen with human reproductive cloning. We need to address that possible loophole.
	It is foolish to criticise the Bill because it does not do everything possible to regulate cloning in all its aspects. We need the measure now. No one pretends that it is the end of the story, but we need the Bill.

William Cash: Over a fairly extended period, many of us have taken part in discussions, both in principle and in detail, on these matters. There is an element of deja vu. I remember that in the early days—1984 or 1985—when the issue of embryo development and scientific analysis was first being discussed, the Chamber was packed. It was vibrant with concern. I say that because there are not that many Members in their places now. However, as so many Members have said, it is a fundamental subject that we should be addressing, so I welcome the opportunity to discuss it.
	Those of us who have read the Bill would not want to take exception to the idea of plugging a loophole. However, the argument has been well made—it is advanced in the reasoned amendment—that the real problem is that there is a huge range of stepping stones that have led to current legislation being found to be defective. It has been ruled by the court, subject to appeal, to be defective. The real problem has lain in the fact that an opportunity has not been taken to have an in-depth analysis of what the issue is really all about.
	I would not make any claims to be a scientist or anything of that sort, and I suspect that most Members would not advance such claims, including the Minister. We are heavily dependent on advice. I have made four attempts, with support from well over 100 Members, to have an ad hoc Select Committee set up to investigate these matters. I am talking not about a departmental Committee but a Committee with proper terms of reference, which would enable the issues to be properly examined. My requests have been refused over and over again. That leaves me with grave concern.
	The matters have not been properly examined and decisions have been taken by a conglomerate of bodies, including the Medical Research Council. I wrote part of an article called "As Important as the Bomb" on the MRC's connection with the issue in 1985. I looked at the MRC's composition and objectives and considered the constitution of its advisory committees, asking pertinent—not, I hope, impertinent—questions about the curriculum vitae of its members, such as where they came from and what their previous positions were. How many people on those committees, which have decided what is or is not therapeutic in relation to given science, took a view contrary to that of the scientific establishment? That raises serious issues. The failure to make a proper objective analysis of those questions led to imperfections in the legislation which in turn have led to the need for the Bill.

Lynne Jones: I cannot accept that there has been no proper objective analysis. Simply because the Science and Technology Committee does not agree with the hon. Gentleman does not mean that its analysis was not objective. We had a year-long inquiry into human genetics, then a short but specific inquiry into cloning, which made recommendations that would have dealt with the problem that we are dealing with today.

William Cash: I am disappointed that the results of the Committee's deliberations did not lead to an improvement in the legislation along the lines that I have suggested. In fact, we have ended up with a series of measures over the past 18 years. At this juncture, we are faced with a Bill produced in an emergency fashion. Undoubtedly, much of the evidence taken in the Select Committee was fair and impartial, but it did not produce the right results. Having an ad hoc Select Committee of the sort to which I referred would be a better way to proceed.
	Bearing in mind the fact that we do not have much time, I do not need to say much more. The key point is that the necessity for proper legislation will arise, but that legislation has not yet been delivered. The reasoned amendment was tabled, as other Members and I have explained, because it is essential to have a Bill which, at last, will deal comprehensively with problems that are moral and, for many Members, spiritual. It is not just a matter of scientific assessment; deep questions arise, affecting people from all walks of life and all religions—and, indeed, those with no religion. I cannot accept Lord Winston's proposition, if he was correctly quoted, that science, in effect, does not have a moral dimension. All legislative matters must be determined as matters of opinion by Members of Parliament. We are elected and have to take account of the moral dimension of all legislation, otherwise there would be no point in our being here. To summarise, it is essential to have proper legislation. The Bill does not achieve that, so I shall support the reasoned amendment.

Glenda Jackson: My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) urged the House to focus on the specifics of this short, concentrated Bill and not to be drawn into discussion of therapeutic cloning. With the honourable exception of the hon. Members for Salisbury (Mr. Key) and for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor), none of the contributors from the official Opposition Benches responded to my hon. Friend's plea.
	As I said earlier, I found parts of the debate this afternoon somewhat ironic. For example, the official Opposition argued that although they supported the Bill, there was insufficient time to examine it. It seemed ironic that they could support a Bill without knowing what was in it. The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) urged the Government—I acknowledge that I am paraphrasing him—to be honest in their contributions, and then proceeded to quote Lord Winston in an extremely partial way.
	I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Salisbury for giving the entire quote. Lord Winston did indeed say that
	"knowledge—does not have a moral dimension",
	but he concluded—I will repeat it, as the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) clearly did not listen to his hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury—by saying:
	"We eat from the tree of knowledge; it is up to us not only to use knowledge, but also to use discernment and wisdom."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 November 2001; Vol. 629, c. 25.]
	That is central to what we are discussing.
	I found it somewhat ironic that the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), urged my hon. Friend the Minister—again, I am paraphrasing—to use the correct words for describing a specific instance, and then proceeded to describe abortion as killing babies.
	Let us set all that to one side. I support the Bill and totally refute the arguments advanced by Opposition Members that the Government are panicking or attempting to rush the legislation through. In the light of the High Court decision, I regard it as urgent that the Government make abundantly clear what was said in all the debates about therapeutic cloning, and what the entire House believed was the case: that human cloning is illegal. The Government gave a belt-and-braces commitment that they would introduce legislation to ensure that such practices were illegal in this country. They have now done so.
	It is important that the Bill is passed tonight. The Government were right to introduce it when they did. We delude ourselves if we think that there is not an extremely well organised and even a sizeable body of organisations and individuals who are utterly opposed to therapeutic cloning, and certainly to abortion. When we were conducting the debates on therapeutic cloning, I received a vast mailbag from my constituents. Without exception, every single one of those letters urged me to vote against what my constituents had been told was human cloning.
	I repeat that I found it shocking that individuals and organisations—some of which I would have regarded as responsible organisations until I realised what they were doing, and I do not exclude certain arms of the Churches—were deliberately misleading people about therapeutic cloning. They were presenting it as the House actively encouraging scientists to clone human beings. That has never been the position of the House and I do not believe that it will ever be the position of the House or of the country.
	It is important that the message is sent out now. In common with the hon. Members for Salisbury and for Esher and Walton and all my hon. Friends who spoke in the debate, I believe in the paramount importance of the benefits that may be inherent in therapeutic cloning for the thousands, and in some instances millions, of people who have been told that there might be a possibility of their illness, disease or disability, be it genetic or otherwise, being cured or alleviated. It is necessary to encourage science to engage—here, again, I share an opinion with the hon. Member for Salisbury—in the God-given ability to explore the potential for improving the human condition.
	There must be a balance and the House must draw limits, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) said. I would not want to see the sort of hysteria that is sometimes attached to experiment in other areas. Animal research most obviously comes to mind. Scientists whose only commitment is to improve the human condition and to lift the burdens of disease should not be subjected to the sort of horrific treatment that they have sometimes experienced in the past. I congratulate the Government on introducing the Bill.

Liam Fox: The hon. Lady spoke at the outset of her speech about people who might delude themselves in this debate. She should not delude herself into thinking that the Bill is a high-minded measure that the Government have designed to fulfil their manifesto commitments. It was introduced as a result of the court judgment, which left them extremely exposed. We are not considering the Bill in the way in which it should be considered. It is being rushed through all its stages in the House of Commons in one day. That is a measure of how rushed the Government require it to be. We need far more measured legislation that covers a much wider area than we are discussing now.

Glenda Jackson: I do not recall using the phrase "high-handed" or even "high-minded". I support the Government's introduction at such speed of this very small, tightly controlled and focused Bill for the reasons that I have given. It is important that the House shows that it supports in the main the areas of scientific advance that can bring genuine support not tomorrow or next year, but a long way down the line, and that can actively play a part in relieving the unnecessary burdens of so many millions of people around the world. The argument should not be left to those who maliciously argue that any such exploration or scientific discovery is anti-life or will automatically produce cloned human beings, so I say that the House should stand firm and support the Bill.

David Amess: I disagree with everything that the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) has said. Some years ago, she sought to divide the House on a ten-minute Bill that I had tabled to stop sex selection. She was proud that she defeated a Bill that tried to stop sex selection in this country. I was not convinced by her arguments and I found her completely confusing.

Glenda Jackson: May I say that I am equally proud that the hon. Gentleman disagreed with everything that I said in this debate?

David Amess: We are proud and different.
	I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) and his reasoned amendment. Although I shall support the excellent Bill that the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) is due to introduce to the House tomorrow, I did not agree with anything that he said. I know that the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) is not in his place, but I hope that he will look at the record, as he will see that the House of Lords Stem Cell Research Committee has not addressed any issues of law. Indeed, the Clerk specifically told me that it would not be doing so, so I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman was wrong on that point.
	Before hon. Members groan, let me say that I very much agree with Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, who recently said:
	"The Government's proposed Bill does nothing to stop the creation of a human clone: it merely prohibits the transfer of the cloned human embryo to the body of a woman. The clone may be treated in any conceivable way, with no time limit on experimentation, as the High Court judgment makes clear. Experimental cloning is left wholly unregulated. The Bill merely prevents an attempt, in this country, to give the clone a chance of being born. It is often suggested that 'therapeutic' cloning is simply the production of stem cells for research—thus glossing over the creation of the cloned embryo from whom the cells are taken."
	I know that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) did not want us to get on to these matters, but I point out that the House will never settle what life is. There are huge differences of opinion between us on the definitions, and we shall just have to disagree on that matter.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough. in his reasoned amendment, has shown up the Bill for what it is. It is hopeless. As my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) suggested, the idea that the Government are coming forward like a knight in shining armour to deliver the Bill is ridiculous. We are participating in these dreadful proceedings because of the Government's incompetence. That is the way—

Anne Begg: I had not been aware of the hon. Gentleman's Bill on sex selection. He must accept that, under the original Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority has stopped sex selection—it did so in the case of a couple in Monifieth. The Act that the hon. Gentleman is so heavily criticising, passed by a Conservative Government when he was in the House, has done what he wanted. Is it not also the case that if the Government win their appeal, which I hope that they do, all the other issues that is raising will be covered by the Bill?

David Amess: That is not the case. Furthermore, the tacky little operation that peddles the idea that people can choose the sex of their child is still offering its services in north London. I see that the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate has now gone. Anyway, I am not entirely sure about that.
	The reason why I am so cynical about the Bill is that there are undoubtedly vested interests in this area. It is no great coincidence that in November 2000, the Prime Minister gave a speech to the European bioscience conference in London. That was at the same time, by the way, that he would not agree to have a meeting with the leaders of all our faiths, yet he managed to attend this conference. He told delegates that the biotechnology market in Europe alone would be worth $100 billion and could be employing 3 million people by 2005. He was clearly anxious to ensure British involvement in the market, and he said:
	"Biotechnology is the next wave of the knowledge economy, and I want Britain to become its European hub."

Ian Taylor: I am hesitant to say this to one of my hon. Friends, but the Prime Minister was, as he does in many areas, following the lead that I and my colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry took before May 1997, when we launched a crusade for biotechnology because we understood its importance for the improvement of mankind.

David Amess: This is getting out of hand. First we had the Prime Minister saving the world, and now my hon. Friend saving it. My hon. Friend was a splendid Minister, but we disagree on this point.
	In September 1999, Lord Sainsbury appeared at a fringe meeting at the Labour party conference and declared his unequivocal support for embryonic stem cell research. The BioIndustry Association sponsored the meeting, and Lord Sainsbury shared a platform with Dr. Simon Best, the director of Geron BioMed. Michael West, who founded Geron BioMed, was the gentleman associated with the recent example of human cloning. Is this a coincidence, I ask myself?

Stephen Pound: May I counsel the hon. Gentleman, in as gentle a manner as I am capable of, that many of us in the Chamber are strongly minded to support the reasoned amendment? However, every word that he launches into the Chamber makes us less inclined to do so.

David Amess: I say to my co-chair of the all-party Scout Association group that, on my word of honour, I suspected that that might happen. I shall be brief and tone it down a little.
	I am not suggesting that any Labour Member has any part in a vested interest, but I have some difficulty with the matter not being dealt with even-handedly. For instance, Dr. Chris Evans is one of the Labour party's largest donors. He is involved in the £100 million genome campus in Cambridgeshire. In 1996, his company backed a company called ReNeuron, which was set up by three scientists at King's college. He invested £5 million in the only UK company developing an innovative cell transplantation technology with the potential to treat brain disorders. A long list of people, including Sir Ronald Cohen, Dr. George Poste, Professor Christine Gosden and Anne McLaren have a vested interest in the matter and also have the Government's ear.
	I urge hon. Members in all parts of the House to support the reasoned amendment standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I call Hazel Blears.

Andrew Lansley: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for you to invite an hon. Member to speak a second time when other Members have been unable to contribute substantively once?

Madam Deputy Speaker: That is done with the leave of the House.

Hazel Blears: With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	This is a complex issue. We have heard a number of well researched and expert contributions, and ranged over complicated matters of law and difficult matters of science. I wonder whether I need two brains rather than one to catch up, but I shall do my best to deal with as many issues as possible.
	First, the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) asked when the Government first knew that the legal position meant that it was necessary to introduce the legislation before the House. I can confirm that the point at which the Government knew was 15 November, when Mr. Justice Crane handed down the judgment in the High Court. That necessitated this urgent legislation. Until then, the view was that human reproductive cloning remained illegal because the embryology authority would refuse to license it. Therefore, in the absence of a licence, it would be a criminal offence if carried out.

Liam Fox: rose—

Hazel Blears: I must move on, because I am anxious to deal with as many complex issues that Members raised as I can. I have a responsibility to do so.
	The hon. Member for Woodspring also suggested that the powers in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 regulating the use of human eggs are sufficient to deal with this situation. I can tell him that they are not. That Act regulates the storage of eggs, not matters carried out in relation to fresh eggs. Therefore, it is not sufficient to achieve what we want to achieve.
	The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) raised a lot of "what if" questions about the various court cases, asking what would happen if the Government won, what would happen if the applicant won and how long we would take to make a decision on bringing the matter back to the House for further consideration.

Evan Harris: The House of Lords appeal.

Hazel Blears: The hon. Gentleman also asked about whether there would be a House of Lords appeal and whether there would be an appeal to the European Court. I repeat what I said to open the debate: it would be wrong to anticipate what the Court of Appeal may have to say. We must consider the judgment in detail, see where the gaps are and see which issues we need to bring back to the House.
	Alongside the appeal process is the report of the House of Lords Select Committee. The Committee has been meeting for nigh on 12 months, so it is important that we treat its considerations with great seriousness and respect. I come to the comments—

Evan Harris: Dedifferentiated cells.

Hazel Blears: The hon. Gentleman reminds me. I understand that, in the circumstances that he outlined, the embryo would not be created by fertilisation, but there are difficulties in defining the techniques precisely in legislation. That reinforces my initial point. What we have tried to do is provide that embryos created by fertilisation are covered by the 1990 Act, while those created in any other way will be covered by the 2001 Act—if it becomes an Act. There is no room for embryos to, as it were, fall through the middle.
	The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) raised detailed and complex issues. She did not think that the 14-day limit on experimentation would apply to embryos created by cell nuclear replacement. The provision that she mentioned, which refers to the 14-day period or the point at which the primitive streak first appears, is called a deeming provision in law. It seeks to clarify further the primary measure—I think it appears in section 3(3) of the Act—which provides that no experimentation shall be carried out after the primitive streak appears.
	Clearly, in the case of embryos created by cell nuclear replacement as well as those created by fertilisation, there will be a point at which the primitive streak appears. If the Government won their case in the Court of Appeal and embryos created by cell nuclear replacement were covered by the regulatory framework in the 1990 Act, they would also be covered by the provision relating to experimentation. Because in their case too there is a point at which the primitive streak appears, the deeming provision that appears in, I believe, section 3(4) of the Act seeks to clarify the definition of that primitive streak even further.
	The right hon. Lady raised another complex issue, that of consent. She suggested that because the consent provisions in the 1990 Act applied to the owners of the egg and the sperm, and in this instance the owners of the gametes, embryos created by cell nuclear replacement—or the constituent parts of such embryos, being the enucleated egg and the adult cell—would not be subject to the same issues of consent. In fact the egg would be subject to consent: it is clearly a gamete, and would therefore be covered by the 1990 Act. As for the adult cell that would be implanted in the enucleated egg, the common-law provisions would demand consent for any medical treatment requiring the extraction and implantation of that cell. There would therefore be legal coverage, although I accept that it would not be in the same legislation.
	I understand that if the Government won their case and the regulatory framework applied to CNR embryos, the authority would have to issue a licence in which it would be able to make provision with regard to consent. That ought to deal with all the right hon. Lady's points.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) made an excellent speech. It was short, pointed and succinct—a little like the Bill, in fact—and featured her usual common sense and practicality. I was grateful for her support.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Jim Dobbin) made a very considered contribution. He wanted reassurance that, if the Government lost the appeal, we would produce legislation to ensure that CNR embryos were given the same protection as embryos created by fertilisation. I think that I have made it clear that we want to move in that direction, but we must wait and see what the judgment says in terms.
	In another excellent speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner)—who brought considerable experience to the debate—also asked for reassurance about further legislation. I am happy to give him that reassurance.
	We heard a typically knowledgeable and, in my view, extremely interesting speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), who managed yet again to discuss complex science in terms that all of us could understand. He also gave excellent illustrations of what could happen. He said that human reproductive cloning was a very dangerous science, and explained why it was so important for us to pass a Bill ensuring that that dangerous science—given all its possible effects—was not practised here.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) has a fine record on speaking in all the House's debates on research regulations and therapeutic cloning. Today, she brought great practical and common sense to the debate by asking us to concentrate on the Bill's core provisions, which are narrow, tightly drawn, very focused and seek to achieve a particular state of affairs. I am grateful for her support.
	I am sorry that I was not in the Chamber to hear most of the speech of the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), but I have been able to pick up from references to it by other Opposition Members precisely where it was going—which seems to be in an almost backwards direction.
	After the debates earlier this year in both this place and another place, it is clear that the vast majority of Members want therapeutic cloning to be allowed so that we can research and tackle the whole range of tremendously damaging degenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's, Huntington's, Parkinson's and diabetes which affect thousands of people. However, Members also want that research to be done within a proper, rigorous and regulated framework, so that the public can be assured that the research is being done in a proper manner. As hon. Members have said, the science has to be conducted in a manner that we decide is socially, morally and ethically appropriate. A legal framework is vital in ensuring that it is appropriate.
	I assure the hon. Member for Gainsborough that the ICSI process will not be outlawed by the legislation but can continue. I hope that that offers him some comfort.
	I acknowledge the tremendous experience of the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) in these matters. I have had the pleasure of reading his contributions in various debates, and I think that he is probably one of the most knowledgeable hon. Members on these issues because he has been involved in them almost from the beginning. He spoke today about getting the balance right and ensuring that we take this urgent action. Like other hon. Members, he suggested the possibility of pre-legislative scrutiny. I am delighted that hon. Members on both sides of the House agree that pre-legislative scrutiny is working well. The Government decided to introduce it because we thought that it would work well. I shall certainly consider his request.
	The hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor) made a very thoughtful and practical speech. He said that the Bill's objectives are clear, and I am grateful to him for that support. He also said that the settled will of Parliament was to ensure that the research continues, but under a proper framework.
	The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) said that he will support the reasoned amendment and not the Bill. I am very surprised that hon. Members should not want to support the Bill, which will outlaw human reproductive cloning as I think that the vast majority of the public want us to do that. The reasoned amendment wants to take us backwards and reopen the whole debate on therapeutic cloning, but the House has already made clear its views on that matter.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) offered another sensible, no-nonsense approach to the issue which was very welcome. She made it abundantly clear that the Government are not going to allow human reproductive cloning. That is the will of Parliament and has the public's support.
	It is clear that the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) also wants to reopen the whole debate on the use of cell nuclear replacement embryos for research on the development of stem cells to tackle degenerative diseases. The Bill does not seek to address that issue. It is a narrow, tightly drawn and tightly focused Bill that seeks to make human reproductive cloning illegal in the United Kingdom. The Bill should command the support of the vast majority of hon. Members. It will send out a very clear message that that procedure is not to be allowed.
	I think that it was the hon. Member for Woodspring who said that, if they are to have confidence in science and the way in which biomedicine is developing, the public will have to see that we are a sensible Government who are ensuring that science is developing in a structured and managed manner. People who have a clear grasp of these complex issues know that we are not a Government who are going to walk away and that we care deeply about these issues. We recognise the social, moral, ethical and political implications of the research. We are absolutely determined—
	It being Seven o'clock, Madam Deputy Speaker, put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [this day].

Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	The House divided: Ayes 49, Noes 288.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 62 (Amendment on second or third reading), and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the whole House, pursuant to Order [this day].
	Bill immediately considered in Committee.
	Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Bill read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

Ann Widdecombe: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It will not have escaped your notice that at the Committee stage of the Bill none of the amendments were discussed, and that that stage included only forthwith votes on stand parts. Is that really what is meant by parliamentary scrutiny, Madam Deputy Speaker, and will you, as the guardian of the right of the House to hold the Executive to account, please examine the proceedings today with a view to ensuring that they can never be repeated?

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have to inform the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) that the timing of the debate was very much in the hands of the House itself, as it had agreed to the allocation of time order.

HOSPICE MOVEMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Stringer.]

David Taylor: I am especially pleased to have secured this debate on the future of the UK hospice movement in the light of recent closure announcements affecting four of the 20 homes run by Sue Ryder Care, including the hospice at Staunton Harold hall in my constituency.
	I shall outline the history of the hospice movement in the United Kingdom, the problems that it has traditionally encountered and the inherent limitations of the over-reliance of the national health service on the voluntary sector to deliver what is now an essential element of public health care. My speech will draw on the research of the National Council for Hospice and Specialist Palliative Care Services and Help the Hospices. I am grateful for their assistance.
	In 1967, the voluntary sector, tackling a gaping hole in state provision, founded St. Christopher's, Britain's first modern hospice at Sydenham. Prior to that, what we have come to know as palliative care might occasionally have been provided in the patient's own home, but availability was patchy and remained so for some decades.
	The lives of most people will be touched by cancer, either their own or that of a relative or friend; my life was, two decades ago. A searing memory comes back unbidden of a family member who contracted myeloma and of how we were all traumatised by the terminal phase of that bone marrow disease. It was an awful period for our family, with a prolonged physical and emotional agony that might have been relieved had hospice care been available.
	The growth of the hospice movement has offered the chance of equity of access to provision but, for reasons that I shall detail, it remains restricted in its ability to expand and to provide an increasing number of beds. Even with the limitations of the voluntary sector, that vital, magnificent and enduring movement can still provide 70 per cent. of all in-patient care, 87 per cent. of all day care, 44 per cent. of all home care and 81 per cent. of all out-of-hours care.
	Voluntary contributions created and sustained the first hospices and remain the financial life blood of the majority of them. The voluntary sector continues to run two thirds of all hospices in the UK. Although the need for state provision of palliative care was eventually acknowledged, the growth of NHS contributions to voluntary sector hospices has been agonisingly slow, although it was at least ring-fenced until the early 1990s.
	The removal of the separate status of hospices in health authority budgets has, I fear, led to the closure of charitable hospices.

David Drew: Does my hon. Friend agree that the greatest problem is that there is a disparity between what is given by health authorities and trusts and that that has a disproportionate effect on hospices?

David Taylor: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend, whose Adjournment debate on this topic was a seminal one in the last Parliament. He makes a valid point, as I hope to show later.
	In the late 1980s, the right hon. Member for South–West Surrey (Virginia Bottomley), in her capacity as a Health Minister, stated:
	"The Government's objective is to work towards a position in which the contribution from public funds available to voluntary hospices and similar organisations matches that of voluntary giving. This will provide a clear basis on which to plan ahead."—[Official Report, 15 December 1989; Vol. 163, c. 847W.]
	That seemed to be a huge leap forward, and it led voluntary hospices to base their plans on hopes of an eventual move towards 50 per cent. state funding, but, with some exceptions in Scotland, that objective was never achieved. One of the better English cases—Leicestershire's Loros—receives 41 per cent. state funding. However, since 1996, the proportion of funding that the independent charitable hospices sector receives from the state has declined from 35 to 29 per cent. in 2000-01.

David Lepper: Does my hon. Friend agree that the situation faced by the Martlets hospice, which serves the Brighton and Hove area, is not uncommon in that it still relies on annual funding from the primary care group and therefore cannot plan ahead, as it could if it were given three-year funding?

David Taylor: I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. Indeed, I shall make a similar point later. The three-year planning horizon is illusory for many hospices.
	Children's hospices receive state funding of only a meagre 5 per cent. on average. If we are to safeguard the widespread provision of palliative care, the need for a national strategy for the funding of voluntary hospices cannot be stated strongly enough. The restoration of their separate status would prevent the perpetuation of the present almost annual negotiations with health authorities, primary care groups and primary care trusts for emergency supplementary funding. Left unaddressed, the disparities in the statutory funding of hospices and the resulting unevenness of geographical provision will worsen.
	The voluntary sector's role in providing hospice care has been invaluable to successive Governments in taking the burden of responsibility off the NHS. That has led to a culture of complacency towards palliative care in the NHS and its Treasury paymasters, in which health authorities seem to regard it as a late call on tight budgets, not as one of the first claims. Unsurprisingly, palliative care is still viewed as the preserve of the voluntary sector, providing significant volunteering opportunities to those with personal experience of nursing terminally ill relatives.
	That tacit arrangement continues to characterise hospice and palliative care provision in the United Kingdom, and it is to the eternal credit of the volunteers and professionals working in the sector that, despite a future shot through with uncertainty, they continue to provide environs of dignity and respect and an incomparable quality of care to those coming to the end of their lives. I am not saying, however, that the NHS should always incorporate hospice or palliative care facilities in hospitals even if appropriate sites are available.

Teddy Taylor: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the problems, under Governments of either party, is that when there is a substantial increase in spending, such as a staff pay rise, every part of the NHS gets the money except the hospices?

David Taylor: I must have left my draft speech on a photocopier, because I shall come to that very point later. NHS inflation, especially in relation to nurses' pay, is a serious problem. Coherent guidelines for local health authorities and PCTs need to be formulated so that local health authorities are encouraged—or, in new Labour-speak, incentivised—to improve their perception and usage of hospice services.
	I understand that the National Institute for Clinical Excellence is in the process of creating such guidelines for the budget holders, but that they are not due to be published until the middle of next year. Will the Minister please confirm the planned publication time scale?
	Furthermore, the psychology of the service and environment provided by the voluntary sector often has important advantages for the patient over NHS provision, where beds are typically found for palliative care in a hospital or, at least, on an adjacent site. Even if practical, NHS provision does not offer psychological or psycho-social sanctuary to terminally ill people in the way that hospices have traditionally done. The voluntary sector can offer a curative distance, alleviating the emotional agony of terminal illness. The Government are to be applauded for acknowledging that intrinsic advantage as they promote and encourage partnership between the NHS, voluntary, independent and charitable sectors.
	In my constituency, the life of the Sue Ryder Care hospice at Staunton Harold hall is drawing to an early and unnecessary end, speeded by the action of its landlords, the Ryder Cheshire Foundation. A 31-year lease on that historic building, which is in the most picturesque and tranquil setting, is being surrendered under pressure from the foundation, as part of its need to realise assets. Hard-nosed boardroom attitudes enter by the front door, and agency funding and caring staff have left by the rear.
	However, the foundation is not the only guilty party in this sad saga. Poor co-ordination between the various NHS bodies leads to a successor range of small palliative facilities attached to hospitals that will struggle to approach the quality of care that is the bedrock of Staunton's reputation. The 20,000-plus signatures on the petition handed in at Sue Ryder Care's head office in London bore testimony to the high esteem and affection that local people have for the Staunton Harold hospice.
	A magnificent care home closes. Despite an energetic fight by William Fantham, Helen Fawcett and their fellow KOSSH campaigners, a treasured hospice is to be lost—one on which local communities had become very reliant and to which they have become most attached. The national charitable sector is the smallest presence in the palliative care network with just 17 UK hospices and it is very vulnerable to the sort of circumstances that have sadly stolen the jewel from the Leicestershire hospice crown.
	Although I welcome the £50 million pledged to palliative services in the NHS cancer plan and the opening up of the new opportunities fund to the voluntary sector, the allocation process highlights what has traditionally hampered the sector in the expansion of its progressive care practices: the disparate and improvised nature of its statutory funding. That leads to a perennially precarious situation. Hospices can go for months not knowing their long or even short-term prospects for survival, with the spectre of closure and the removal of patients from their beds always hanging over them.
	Although late funding is often found from one source or another, the supposed three-year length of the contracts with the health authorities is rarely the case in reality. Such is the frugal nature of NHS contributions. It is a cruel irony that, in some years, hospices are often saved from closure by the deaths of former patients and/or their relatives.
	In January 2001 in England, not including children's hospices, there were 449 hospice or palliative care beds available in the 36 NHS units compared with 2,074 beds in the 127 voluntary "units". Logically, this would be respected as an exemplar of best practice and value for money and the state would recognise the success of this palliative care model by embarking on a national strategy to guarantee its funding. But there is little logical about the disproportionate emphasis on handling a slow inflow of tax revenue that has masqueraded as modern government for the past 20 years.
	Post-Staunton provision in North-West Leicestershire is obviously a priority for the local primary care group. I believe that four beds in Coalville community hospital are already earmarked for palliative usage. Good as that is, it illustrates the improvised nature of palliative provision. Staunton Harold's capacity was latterly 12 beds, supplemented only by a handful of other voluntary hospices
	Unfortunately, that situation of insufficient beds and sites is replicated all over the country. Lord Hunt said recently that the NHS was mapping existing services to identify and tackle geographical inequalities. I welcome that, but it must not be an excuse for delay nor a disincentive to the voluntary sector if little extra funding is to be available in areas with high community involvement.
	In summary, existing state funding is inadequate to provide even a very basic level of universal palliative care. Despite the welcome £50 million for specialist palliative care in the NHS cancer plan, local hospices trying to access this funding via the cancer networks cannot find the way in to the foggy maze that confronts them. This cloud of uncertainty over finance also embraces strategic planning as the NHS seems unwilling to spell out its core palliative care responsibilities. That is at the heart of the present crisis.
	We need a national strategy and framework for palliative care. Hospices need to know what the state accepts as its responsibilities and that the Government will commit to fund them. With a more realistic taxpayer contribution to costs, charitable fundraising can focus on the piloting and expansion of progressive care and treatments.
	Communications between Government, their agencies and the voluntary sector have been improved a little by the national compact, but the startling lack of awareness about it by the Department of Health has seriously impaired its dealings with the voluntary hospice movement. Properly joined-up government could and should change such cynical reactions into more constructive relations.
	There is a tremendous fund of good will towards the voluntary and charitable hospice movement from the generous British public, but their ability to underwrite the costs of this crucial service has been stretched too far. Collecting tins, charity shops and cake stalls can only do so much. National taxation, whether hypothecated or not, needs to pull its weight. Warm words from Government are not enough. We need action—and now.

Andy Reed: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North–West Leicestershire (David Taylor) and my hon. Friend the Minister for giving me the opportunity to speak briefly in support of my hon. Friend the Member for North–West Leicestershire. We have worked closely together on the matters that we are discussing.
	I want to speak specifically about children's hospices. The Rainbow hospice is a fantastic children's hospice in my constituency. It suffers from the sort of problems that my hon. Friend described. I know from my visits to it that it rightly calls itself a place of rest on a long and difficult journey. Rainbow provides respite and terminal care in the hospice and at home for children who suffer from conditions that mean that they will die before reaching adulthood. We need to remember that that is what hospices are about.
	One problem is that Rainbow has to cover Derby, Leicestershire, Lincolnshire, Northamptonshire, Nottinghamshire and south Yorkshire. Although it helps families to cope with life-shortening conditions such as Batten disease or life-threatening conditions such as cancer, working across such a wide area is extremely difficult.
	I want to concentrate briefly on Rainbow's wonderful work. As my hon. Friend said, fundraising has become increasingly important. The hospice has to raise more than £1 million simply to remain as it is. It is lucky in being able to raise 10 per cent. of its income from health authorities and others. That is above the national average, but it shows the enormous amount of work that such a hospice has to do. Although it produces wonderful glossies and can rely on the good will of people in my constituency and throughout the east midlands, so much effort is put into fundraising that one feels that more of it should be directed at the excellent care that is provided at Rainbow.
	As I said, Rainbow has to deal with all the health authorities in the counties that I mentioned. I have always supported PCTs, but I fear that even more work will have to be done to ensure the continuation of funding to Rainbow. I appreciate that the Minister and the health team have been considering innovative ways of providing health care in the future, but they should consider the excellent work that is happening not only at Rainbow but in the constituencies of the majority of hon. Members who have stayed for the debate. It is a testament to the work of hospices that so many hon. Members are in the Chamber.
	I repeat that there is no agreed national strategy about funding voluntary hospices. They negotiate with health authorities, PCGs and PCTs, which means that there is a wide variance. The Government rightly emphasise an end to the postcode lottery for many other aspects of the health service. I hope that the Minister can end the postcode lottery that appears to be happening in our hospice movement.
	More PCTs will make matters harder. From parliamentary questions that I have tabled in the past, I know that health authorities receive an element of funding for hospices. However, not all of them necessarily use the allocation to fund their local hospices. The further away one travels from Leicestershire, the greater the difficulty of convincing health authorities in, for example, south Yorkshire that they should contribute to the work of Rainbow hospice in Loughborough.
	I make a simple plea to examine the funding of children's hospices seriously, end the postcode lottery that appears to be happening in my area, consider developing a national strategy to bring the best and worst authorities closer together and assess the impact of the move to PCTs on the amount of work that hospices will have to do to secure their current level of funding.

Jacqui Smith: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North–West Leicestershire (David Taylor) on securing a debate on such an important subject as the future of the hospice movement. I am aware of the specific anxieties that he raises about the Sue Ryder home at Ashby.
	The hospice currently receives 50 per cent. funding from the NHS for its services. That is above the national average of 30 per cent., which my hon. Friend rightly mentioned. The closure is due to the termination of the lease by the Ryder Cheshire Foundation rather than the lack of NHS support, but we do need to ensure the continuation of services. To that end, I understand that there has been a constructive discussion between the home and the NHS to work out some options that have been debated by interested parties and will be considered by the cancer network management board in November.
	As my hon. Friends said, the hospice movement is a success story. As a result, we are world leaders in palliative care. It was the hospice movement that first demonstrated the importance of ensuring that those nearing the end of their lives, and their families and carers, receive compassionate and skilful care. That good practice, which began outside the NHS and is still, as my hon. Friends rightly highlighted, predominately provided by the voluntary sector, is now acknowledged as a service that should be available to all who require it. That of course extends beyond those who need it for cancer services.
	There are large variations in the provision and funding of specialist palliative care. Hospices have tended to be established in areas where the general public have been generous. That has enabled centres of excellence based on clinical practice, teaching and research to be established. Unfortunately, it has also resulted in patchy provision and wide variations between regions.
	We have issued guidance to the NHS for palliative care strategies to be in place to meet the needs of the local population, and we are committed to tackling those inequalities in access to specialist palliative care services for patients.
	My hon. Friends rightly ask for action. Let me explain what we intend to do to ensure that palliative care is adequately funded and the inequalities addressed. The national council estimates that total expenditure on adult palliative care services is about £300 million, of which about £170 million is provided by the voluntary sector and £130 million by the NHS.
	The NHS cancer plan sets out our intention to invest an additional £50 million in specialist palliative care by 2004, which will match, on a national basis, the investment by the voluntary sector. That will also enable the NHS to make a realistic contribution to the costs that hospices incur in providing agreed levels of service. We will monitor the information from the service delivery plans and financial frameworks, which will help to provide a transparency for the level of investment made in reaching that target. We intend to ensure that that happens.
	In addition, a further £70 million has been committed by the new opportunities fund to palliative care projects in England. Of that, £22 million has been allocated to adult community palliative care, building on the living with cancer programme, but extending to conditions other than cancer. Merely increasing investment in specialist palliative care, however, will not necessarily address the inequality of provision. We need to know the current level of provision and what is required to meet the needs of the local population.

Teddy Taylor: Will the Minister give way?

Jacqui Smith: No. The hon. Gentleman knows that time is limited.
	That is why we have put in place a series of measures. We have commissioned the National Institute for Clinical Excellence to undertake an evidence-based review of palliative care services as part of the supportive and palliative care service guidance. The guidance will benefit the voluntary sector and help decision making about service delivery. I can confirm that initial findings will be available from summer 2002.
	We have required all 34 cancer networks to develop costed strategic investment three-year plans for palliative care. My hon. Friends made an important point about the certainty of investment. The plans will be based on current provision and local population needs and will form part of the cancer network service delivery plans. Those plans will inform the wider NHS planning process through the health improvement programmes and the service and financial frameworks for 2002-03.
	For the first time, comprehensive data on the current provision of palliative care at a network level will be available. Networks will be able to see where the inequalities in specialist palliative care service provision are and plan services to address that, and as a consequence enable more realistic support for voluntary hospices. That will also enable hospices to plan strategically with cancer networks and identify their own business strategies, putting an end to short-term planning.
	I must stress, as did my hon. Friend the Member for North–West Leicestershire, that we recognise the importance of ensuring that the needs of voluntary sector providers are fully reflected in network investment plans. In some instances, hospices may find it difficult to know how best to influence the process, which is why we have made available central funding to support voluntary hospice and palliative care providers in working effectively with cancer networks in the development of plans. All networks are participating in the programme, funded by the Department and led by the National Council for Hospice and Specialist Palliative Care Services. I agree with my hon. Friend that we must recognise the vital contribution made by the voluntary sector and engage it realistically and properly in NHS planning. We must support the sector to enable it to make its contribution.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed) rightly drew attention to the Rainbow children's hospice. I am grateful that he set out the important work that it undertakes. It is a tribute to the many voluntary organisations that identified the help most needed. Their staff, supporters and well-wishers often have a special appreciation of the care that is required, which is often gained through deep personal experience.
	Children's hospices have made a remarkable contribution to the care and support of dying children and their families. Fortunately, most children will grow into adulthood without experiencing a serious illness, let alone a life-threatening one, but some children are not so fortunate and develop conditions that may lead to an early death. It is important that in the NHS of the future these children and their families have high-quality support services and that coverage is extended so that equal access to a range of options is made possible.
	Provision has been made for funds for children's hospices to come from the NHS. It is a matter for local discussion and agreement and is based on the local health needs assessment with the health improvement programme, which is the general funding mechanism for services. Voluntary health care providers, such as hospices, must be viewed as important players in the planning and provision of services, and should be involved in the development of health improvement programmes. That involvement should help to lead to more structured funding streams.
	I recognise the concern that has been expressed about the development of primary care trusts and the role that they play. The year 2002-03 will be one of transition, with PCTs at different stages of development. They are increasingly making planning and investment decisions on behalf of their local communities. As key players within cancer networks, PCTs will have agreed to and contributed to the development of the network service delivery plan. That will be crucial. We shall soon be issuing national guidance on the new arrangements for the 2002-03 planning process, and allocations will soon be announced to Parliament. As I have said, PCTs will be involved in the cancer network planning process that I have outlined.
	Each region now has a children's "lead" and is surveying the provision of children's palliative care services against demand, engaging voluntary and statutory sectors. We expect this work to secure a far better strategic fit of services to local needs and to achieve a range of options, and to afford greater equity of access for all people.
	As I mentioned earlier, a further £70 million has been committed by the new opportunities fund to palliative care projects in England, of which £48 million has been allocated for children's palliative care to support programmes providing at least one of the following: direct services in the community to children with life-threatening or life-limiting illness—24-hour care; respite care services, which are either home-based or hospice-based; and bereavement services that are home based, community based or hospice based.
	My hon. Friends have rightly said that the founders of the hospice movement, through dogged persistence, careful research and tireless fundraising, helped others to see that care was possible and at the heart of good clinical practice. As a Government, we have set out a challenging agenda for the support of palliative services for adults and children. We are committed to delivering this agenda, and we must work in partnership with the hospice movement if we are to do so. I give my commitment that that is the Government's pledge.

Teddy Taylor: As time is still available, will the Minister say how we will get the £50 million? Hospices throughout the country have been in touch, as she well knows, with the cancer organisations—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is familiar with the procedures of the House. The Minister had already resumed her place. It is too late for an intervention.
	The motion having been made after Seven o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Madam Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
	Adjourned at fifteen minutes to Eight o'clock.